# Discussion of Canada's Role in AFG (merged)



## Pikache (16 Jan 2004)

Francine Dube  
CanWest News Service 

Friday, January 16, 2004

In his last speech to Canadian soldiers here who begin returning home next week, Maj.-Gen. Andrew Leslie said "there is no way in ****" that the Canadian Armed Forces can continue to maintain 2,000 soldiers in the region past August.

"Quite frankly, a whole bunch of you -- not only you here, but also those people working their butts off back in Canada to support and sustain this, need a bit of a break," he said Thursday. 

"So, until the Canadian Armed Forces grows in size, until we get a pause in operational missions, we will not keep 2,000 soldiers here." 

The soldiers on the base now, most of whom arrived in the summer of 2003, begin returning home next week, to be replaced by the Royal 22nd Regiment (the Van Doos) from Valcartier, Que., whose tour of duty stretches to August 2004. 

Leslie, deputy commander of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force helping maintain order as the shattered country recovers from more than 20 years of war, said he believes NATO will remain in Afghanistan for at least another five years.

"If I were a betting man, I would say it‘s closer to 10," he added. 

However, if Canada maintains any kind of presence after August 2004, it will be a small one, Leslie said. 

The decision on what kind of force to maintain is up to the Canadian government, and Leslie said he is expecting a decision in February or March.

His comments come on the heels of a plea by the new NATO secretary general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, who on Wednesday called on nations to increase their contribution to the security assistance force. While the force, numbering about 5,500 soldiers from 34 countries and centred in Kabul, has been mostly successful in maintaining order in the capital, deadly acts of terrorism continue to plague other parts of the country, in particular Kandahar in the south and the provinces east of Kabul, near the border with Pakistan.

Leslie began the day at a site just outside Camp Julien, where 100 heavy weapons, including multiple rocket launchers, rounded up by the Afghan Militia Forces from sites around Kabul, were brought to one location to be catalogued and stored for future use, if necessary, by the newly formed Afghan National Army. 

The weapons were rounded up to prevent warring factions in the country from using them against each other or the government. A provisional administration is in place and elections are slate for June.

© Copyright 2004 Calgary Herald


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (16 Jan 2004)

I sure hope martin has some plans up his sleeve, and starts presenting them soon.


----------



## Pikache (28 Jan 2004)

In recent days it does not look like Taliban wackos are not yet ready to quit, now resorting to suicide bombing to try to get ISAF to go away.

It seems that DND wants to pull back all troops after the Vandoo tour of Afghanistan.

My thought is that should Canada keep sending troops to Afghanistan?

To me, last two suicide attacks seems like the taliban is calling us out, and I think we should meet that challenge. To pull out now would be like running away.

Without our efforts to bring peace and stability to Afghanistan, who‘s going to step in?


----------



## fusilier955 (28 Jan 2004)

If we pull out, it sends the message to terrorists that if you put attack peacekeepers, they will back out.  If that happens then it could lead to more attacks on not just Canadians, but peacekeepers in general.  I think for the future‘s sake, we should stay in it and not back down, granted it will get worse before it gets better.


----------



## Infanteer (28 Jan 2004)

Totally agree, although I am not there and can‘t speak for the situation on the ground, I think in general both ISAF and the Canadian government has to step it up a notch and start hitting the countryside.  The OP the Royals pulled off a couple weeks ago is a perfect example of the stance we should have.  To me buttoning down or pulling out seems tantamount to admiting defeat, and does no justice to the soldiers who have given their lives doing their duty.

The Americans are still fighting a war in the south of the country, until we admit that and get in with the mindset, Karzai will be the Mayor of Kabul and ISAF will be his constabulary.


----------



## Garry (28 Jan 2004)

I‘m a little biased here, I‘m not real fond of peacekeeping. I‘ve yet to discover any Non-Allied country that‘s worth even one Canadian Soldier‘s life.

On the other hand, if our soldier‘s are fighting an enemy of Canada, and are taking the fight abroad, them I‘m all for staying. Better to fight on their turf than on ours.

So I guess the question is, are we fighting a war or peacekeeping?

Anyone remember if we actually declared war on terrorism? On Al-Quaida?


----------



## Pikache (28 Jan 2004)

"Are we all humans, or some are more human than others?" LGen Dallaire


----------



## Infanteer (28 Jan 2004)

> Better to fight on their turf than on ours.


That, my friend, is what I believe is the whole point of going to these ****-holes.



> So I guess the question is, are we fighting a war or peacekeeping?
> 
> Anyone remember if we actually declared war on terrorism? On Al-Quaida?


I think the NATO declaration of Article 5 was a close enough thing to it, was it not?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (28 Jan 2004)

I don‘t think Canada wants a reputation of running when it got tough. It would do everyone in the Forces a dis-service and make those who have been killed a sacrifice in vain.


----------



## Franko (28 Jan 2004)

NATO never declared article 5 on the Taliban. The tour is Non-article 5 right now.

As for our going in, don‘t forget it was a ploy by JC to keep us out of the Iraq War, and saving face at the same time by saying we were committed to the war on terror. The last thing JC thought when he gave a green light to the Ops was "at least we are not involved in the Gulf...it‘s not sanctioned by the UN".   

As for us pulling out...not yet. Plans are in the works to keep us there for another 3 tours(it‘s pretty firm from what I have been told) with drafts done up for the next 5 years(normal SOP). We‘re in for the long haul...as for the politicians saying we‘re taking a year off, they better get with the program and stop shooting off their mouths when they are done making their promisses.   

What kind of message are they trying to send to our allies in theater? We‘re with you for the long haul but sorry...we‘re going on vacation for a year?   

I can‘t see it...nor do I want to believe it. Canada has been resting on our laurels for much too long. Sure it‘s a proud heritige...but it‘s in the past. Our reputation doesn‘t help us when a bomb is exploded in one of our major cities. The Americans reputation didn‘t help when 911. It‘s a huge mistake on our part if we take a "vacation", one that will tarnish the CF and Canada‘s reputation

As for Ex-Dragoon‘s statement, I couldn‘t agree more.

Regards


----------



## GForce (28 Jan 2004)

That‘s a good question, I think USA ruined Mideast relations, so they should be the ones fixing it even if their losing allies and moral around the world. Now everyone making such a HUGE deal when 1 Canadian soldier is killed just reminds everyone how our army is shrinking and it doesn‘t help criticism. Now heavier vech‘s might of saved his life but obviously paul martin has other plans (wasting money all over). So dont count on it


----------



## Korus (28 Jan 2004)

> I think most canadians are not too naive to believe that being a Canadian soldier and not an American protects them somehow.


You should see how much flack I catch from some of the clueless people I encounter at my University.. I kindly try to explain to them that although I am a Canadian soldier, I don‘t make US Government policy.
And that‘s IN Canada...


----------



## kaspacanada (28 Jan 2004)

I agree S_Baker.  Infidels are infidels and occupiers are occupiers - depending on your perspective. 



> Originally posted by Franko [qb]
> As for us pulling out...not yet. Plans are in the works to keep us there for another 3 tours(it‘s pretty firm from what I have been told) with drafts done up for the next 5 years(normal SOP). We‘re in for the long haul...as for the politicians saying we‘re taking a year off, they better get with the program and stop shooting off their mouths when they are done making their promisses.
> 
> What kind of message are they trying to send to our allies in theater? We‘re with you for the long haul but sorry...we‘re going on vacation for a year?
> ...


Where did you hear that we have plans for those ROTO‘s?  That‘s interesting to me.

  Like you I don‘t agree with taking this break, but from what I have seen, the problems with the CF‘s personnel and operational tempo have been building for a long time now.  It will very likely hurt our reputation, and it doesn‘t send a good message to our allies, but I think we‘ve caused this ourselves. (primarily politically but also due to our apparent recruiting shortages)  I think we could use the break (speaking from what I have seen in the Senate Reports) but am curious about what you think.  Do we need the break or should we open up a new string for this? (if there isn‘t already one)


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (28 Jan 2004)

Franko what are your sources regarding up coming Roto‘s.  I very much doubt the current gov‘t knows how long we will be there plus this is an election year.  Who is to say we would have stayed if it was quite all along.  The gov‘t has made it clear they want to scale things back so maybe they were going to pull out regardless.


----------



## Franko (28 Jan 2004)

S. Baker... my point was the US has always been proactive when it comes to terrorists. They have helped out many countries that were and still are in need. The US is the ONLY superpower left after the cold war...and still you were attacked by a bunch of radicals who didn‘t fear the wrath of the US military...at that time, now it‘s a different story...cowards.   

Canada on the other hand has been resting on it‘s laurals from the past wars as a fighting nation. We were feared during the Great War and WW2. Korea was a reinforcement of that belief. Now we rest on our butts while we let everyone else fight our battles. Our allies are fighting and dieing and we just sit there, safe at home watching it happen on TV.

We SHOULD be shoulder to shoulder with our allies on the war in Iraq. But the peacenicks in Ottawa have us doing the exact opposite.   

If they attacked the US, the only uberpower left...whats stopping them from doing it to us? I say bring the fight to them, smoke 'em out(as Dubbia would say) and get rid of these *******s as quickly as possible in the most efficient way.

I was not in any way saying Canada is the best in comparison to the US or any other country for that matter. We are in a partnership with you Yanks(NATO) and other countries in this war on terror. Why are the powers that be in Ottawa trying so hard to keep us from being where we belong, with your troops in the sand box, is complete bollocks!

Sorry for the confusion...long day in the C.P.

BTW...The only thing we are better at is: Canadian beer is better than Yank beer    

Regards


----------



## Franko (28 Jan 2004)

The question on ROTOs to Afganistan...common knowledge of EVERYONE here in Bosnia. It was released by DND to the major networks. As for drafts....SOP for furure ops. They always do it, even when they closed out Cyprus.

Regards


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (28 Jan 2004)

Well I don‘t need to tell you that things that are firm are about as firm as water.  Things change so much that I don‘t believe until its come and gone.  So as for 3 more tours after the R22d I won‘t be holding my breath.


----------



## Franko (28 Jan 2004)

We‘ll soon see. I‘m like you actually. During prayers when we got that point I laughed!   

Regards


----------



## Bartok5 (28 Jan 2004)

From my personal perspective as one who spent 6 months in Afghanistan during the "combat" phase, we have no choice but to remain committed.  A handful of deaths do not provide adequate substantiation for a retraction of our national commitment to support for the international "war on terrorism".  The questionable political motivations that led us to continue our commitment in the form of the ISAF "peace support" role are irrelevant.  

We "ante‘d up" for ISAF to avoid a combat commitment to Iraq, and we‘d best honour our government‘s pledge to the current 1 year ISAF deployment unless we wish to be perceived in an even worse international light that we currently are.  When I say "international, I give equal gravity to the perceptions of our major allies (the U.S., England and Australia) as well as the enemy.  You can all draw your own conclusions as to what would happen on both fronts were we as a nation to cut and run as soon as we suffer a handful casualties.  My comment is in no way intended to belittle or down-play the sacrifice of those who have been killed or wounded.  Those are simply the "hard mathematics"....the "measure" if you will, of any nation‘s commitment to the war on terror.

Having lost 4 comrades-in-arms back in April of 2002, I can certainly empathize with the RCR Battlegroup‘s loss of 3 soldiers over their 6 month deployment.  Sadness and frustration are undoubtedly the order of the day.  Sadly, as so many coddled Canadians fail to understand, casualties are the price of freedom.  I would humbly suggest that we as a nation have gotten off VERY lightly to date.  This will most likely NOT be the case in the future.

When placed between a rock and a hard place and forced to decide between an open-ended commitment to Iraq or a year as the major contributor to ISAF, the choice for our government was a "no-brainer".  The ISAF mission was deemed to be the most "palatable" option -  requiring the least effort and offering the least casualties, while still earning us the bare minimum of international acceptance.  In typical fashion, what our politicos failed to realize was that either option would entail casualties.  As harsh as it may sound in light of the most recent incident, Afghanistan was always (and remains) the least likely option casualty-wise.

So, NO - we cannot and should not "cut and run" from our ill-advised Afghan commitment.  If we do so, we send an unmistakable message to the scum-bags of the world that we are a soft target.  Many of us may not agree with our government‘s employment (misemployment?) of the CF‘s meagre resources, but I can say with the utmost certainty that evey those who have never served a day in uniform understand the situation that we‘re collectively in.

To answer an earlier question, the Al Qaeda and Taliban ARE "Declared Enemies" of our nation.  This official designation was enacted shortly following the 9/11 attacks.  The declaration of a "national enemy" was the political/legal basis for launching my former unit on deliberate combat operations against the AQ and Taliban 2 years ago.   

Just my thoughts as a serving soldier who has inhaled more than a little Afghan dust.....


----------



## GForce (28 Jan 2004)

" I think most canadians are not too naive to believe that being a Canadian soldier and not an American protects them somehow. " That‘s rather funny providing we‘ve bailed you out of alot and you‘ve returned absolutely nothing.. remember world war one, and two when Canadian and European or Oversea‘s troops were protecting you for 3 since‘s while you guys picked your noses? quiet please as if you knew what was going on in the afghan. I think your niave for even posting that. Americans are nice guys ok? you guys always try and be one step ahead of us when your like 15 times our size in population that alone makes you look bad providing we‘ve militarized and urbanized almost more then you per capita


----------



## GForce (28 Jan 2004)

Baker, look up on the Halifax explosions when our allies exploded enough munitions to take out more then one city. I dont recall us over-reacting and making that big of a deal over it we realized it was an accident, or plain stupidity. USA hasn‘t realized that Iraq has basically cleaned up as of 1995 you guys just havn‘t realized it.


----------



## portcullisguy (28 Jan 2004)

Even if Canada cannot commit to further ROTO‘s for the ISAF mission, ISAF itself should expand its role, without question.

The terrorists, I don‘t imagine, see the little flag on our shoulder, and could care less that we come from Canada, Britain or Bahrain.  To them, we are "foreign coalition infidels" and the terrorist element cannot bring the country back to the dark ages while we are still there, trying to restore peace, security, and basic human rights.

So long as ISAF stays, the work continues.  If Canada cannot be a part of it, I am ok with that.  It would be a shame to leave the mission, and I would hope that our contribution will include troops for as long as they‘re needed.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (28 Jan 2004)

G Force btw who do you think came to our aid after the Halifax explosion? Wasn‘t the UK but the US.


----------



## Infanteer (28 Jan 2004)

G-Force, who are you?  Maybe fill out your profile so we can figure out who is flinging mud at our American representative.

Mark C, welcome back sir.



> Even if Canada cannot commit to further ROTO‘s for the ISAF mission, ISAF itself should expand its role, without question.


That was the crux of my original arguement.  Simply patroling the streets of Kabul (no matter how professionally executed by ISAF) does not go far enough in eliminating the threat that lies within Afghanistan.  That is why our American brothers are still in the mountains to the south, rooting these *******s out.

I think the fact that the Canadian leadership is discussing pulling all our contingents out worldwide is ridiculous and shows their inability to conceptulize the nature of the war we are in right now.  

What if Canada had pulled its army out of Europe at the end of 1944 due to exaustion?  I see no difference to what some are advocating now, and I firmly believe that most Canadian soldiers believe this as well and accept the fact that we are needed abroad.  I, for one, am just waiting for the word....


----------



## Danjanou (28 Jan 2004)

> ...look up on the Halifax explosions when our allies exploded enough munitions to take out more then one city...


Ok, Im a bit curious Which allies were those?
From every account I‘ve read it was a tragic accident. Possibly preventable, maybe depending on which version we wish to accept, if any as gospel (cowardly ship captain, incompetant pilot, unreasonable SOPs etc.), but in the end an accident. Your statement makes it sound like some deliberate act and by an ally.

Care to elaborate on that G-Force?

Mark, Franko, excellent points. We have to stay the distance. I often wonder though if most of our elected officials have half the moral fibre of the young men and woman patrolling the streets of Kabul.


----------



## muskrat89 (28 Jan 2004)

Mark C - one of the finest posts I‘ve read, in a long time.

Infanteer - always a pleasure

Franko - Welcome to another sensible person


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (28 Jan 2004)

I think we need to figure out what our end state is going to be in Afganistan and have an exit strategy.  I don‘t think pulling all our resources back in is such a bad idea because at the current rate we are going we are running out of reserves for potential major stuff such as a catastrophic natural or manmade disaster on the home front as well as abroad.  We are stretch way too thin and too reliant on other nations for things such as air movement and air support.  The time of spending 30 years in Cypres and over ten in Bosnia is over.  We need a new strategy such as going in and seperating the opposing parties and then handing off to someone else.  These decade long taskings are too taxing to our small military.  By pulling back we can take a breath, focus on developing some quality troops and procuring some quality kit.  We couldn‘t have commited to Iraq if we wanted to, not in any significant way as I can see.  The U.S. knows our shortcomings and I have no doubt that they wouldn‘t blame us for pulling up stakes for awhile and I bet a lot of them wished their gov‘t wished they sent them home.

P.S. please excuse any spelling errors.  Also this GForce character is a right out of it and perhaps should go on a time out.


----------



## FutureTroopie (29 Jan 2004)

> Originally posted by GForce:
> [qb]I think USA ruined Mideast relations[/qb]


  
Since when have relations ever been good with the middle east??


----------



## Thompson_JM (29 Jan 2004)

I really dont think i can add anything that hasnt already been said, apart from personal opinion, that we Have to keep troops there. We committed our men and women, and despite the tragic cost so far, we all knew the risks, and we all knew that some of our boys wouldnt be comming home. I can only speak for myself, but if even if i knew i was facing certain death going over there, if i thought i could help those people restore some form of peace, or remove some element of the evil that is already far to prevelent in this world, I would still go willingly. I cant pretend to know the pain and sorrow that the families and freinds of our fallen comrades are going through, but I hope that they can at least take comfort in the fact that their loved ones died performing the most honorable and noble duty of all, Helping others. 

anyways, thats just my two cents... well closter to $1.50...


----------



## portcullisguy (29 Jan 2004)

People talk about having an "exit strategy" and then someone here made a comparison to WWII, asking rhetorically what if Canada decided to jack it in 1944 due to exhaustion.

Got me thinking (I know, I see the smoke coming from my ears too)...

...did our boys in Europe have a "exit strategy" when they went over to help out Britain and the US kick the Jerries?  I‘ve read a bit of WWII history (admittedly, not that much).  I don‘t recall ever hearing of any other overall Allied strategy other than "finish the job".

Even the division of the German state between the Allies was very much up in the air until the latest stages of the war.

Did we ask "what‘s our exit strategy?" or "what happens when we get bogged down?" or did we just send our troops off, knowing that the cause was just, losses were expected, and when the job is done, our boys can come home.

I have my own personal suspicion on the matter, but I wanted to hear everyone‘s opinion first.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (29 Jan 2004)

Times have changed and we no longer have unlimited resources, plus WW2 was seen as an immediate global threat.  The last thing anyone wants is to be over there with no feasable end in sight.


----------



## onecat (29 Jan 2004)

"Did we ask "what‘s our exit strategy?" or "what happens when we get bogged down?" or did we just send our troops off, knowing that the cause was just, losses were expected, and when the job is done, our boys can come home."

There wasn‘t one.  The Great War and WW2, were total wars for canada.  We were there till it was done, no questions asked.  No one signed up thinking they were there for a year and it was over, or that they would get tours of duty; things were just different than.


----------



## onecat (29 Jan 2004)

"the UK was attacked by terrorists, parliment destroyed, the Queen and most of her immediate family were killed as well. What do you think Canada would say?"

Canada go and help in any way it could.  Just like it did after 9/11, it would send in SAR teams, send blood and any support needed.  After it was over and the UK was ready to go after the group that did it, Canada would be there too. Just like 9/11 would support this war on Terror too.  

S_Baker I think your question is bit different though, in 9/11 only a business towers was hit no from government so they really are two different set ups.  Plus if the Queen and Royal family are killed, then its an attack on Canada seeing as the Queen is our head of state. An attack Like that would get Canada involved right away, as would most of the Common Wealth.


----------



## winchable (29 Jan 2004)

> Originally posted by radiohead:
> [qb] no from government [/qb]


Is this none from government?

If it is; isn‘t the Pentagon a government building?

I‘m staying out of the thread for the time being, I just read this and thought it should be pointed out.


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Jan 2004)

"business towers was hit no from government so they really are two different set ups"

I disagree.
terrorist attacks effect the publics support for the government. Terrorists dont attack to take over countries, they attack to ruin them and make people suffer.
Look at how much money the government had to pump into airport security because of a buisness building being hit. Look at how upset people were at the government for letting it happen when it came to light that it could have been halted.

They are undermining the government by attacking those types of buildings.


----------



## Franko (29 Jan 2004)

Alright troops...we‘re WAY off topic. Lets try to keep it to the question posed.

S Baker... on my last point I hope I cleared up any miss-understandings.

Regards


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (29 Jan 2004)

...or a letter in a name that might change the meaning- I believe its with a "K"   {check name spelling}


----------



## cdnguy215 (29 Jan 2004)

"I would hope that the CDN government has the staying power and the understanding that the "war" on terror (for the lack of a better term) is a long term mission."

The Canadian government has a done a very good job fighting the war on the terror.  Since 9/11 CF forces have been in Afghanistan first actually fighting and then as a peacekeeping force.  The Navy has been in Gulf since 9/11 almost around the clock.  So yes the government does know that this war is going to be long.  Even during the Iraq war the Navy had at one point 4 ships in Gulf.

The Liberals aren‘t strong on defence and they do need to put money resources into Forces   But they been putting resources in the war on terror.  Just because they didn‘t support the US led war on Iraq ( which to many was not part of war on terror but a personal war for Bush) doesn‘t mean Canada has not there for the war on terror.


----------



## dwild40 (30 Jan 2004)

Bravo Baker


----------



## tanner_graydon (30 Jan 2004)

I don‘t think Canada gets the recognition it deserves from the US. How many Canadians mourned US dead following 9/11? something like 100 000 at parliament hill alone?

I might be wrong but, is Canada not the 3rd largest contributor of forces in the war on Terror?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (30 Jan 2004)

> Originally posted by S_Baker:
> [qb] G force,
> 
> I thought I would share this with you.....
> ...


I already pointed that out S_Baker


----------



## cdnguy215 (30 Jan 2004)

"it is not the "number" of forces deployed in the "war on terror," but a commitment not to be chased away or intimidated by a bunch of thugs!"

S_Baker.. so what has Canada done that‘s shows its not had this commitment to the war on Terror?  Canada has commitment more troops and resoucres and most other countries, from what I‘ve heard we‘re 3rd.  So that‘s very big commitment from a government which has shown doesn‘t support the military.


----------



## Spr.Earl (30 Jan 2004)

> Originally posted by Ex-Dragoon:
> [qb] G Force btw who do you think came to our aid after the Halifax explosion? Wasn‘t the UK but the US. [/qb]


Yes,the City of Boston gave everything except it‘s soul to people Halifax that year.   

G Force "READ YOUR HISTORY"


----------



## cdnguy215 (30 Jan 2004)

"I was in the middle east twice, how about you?"

So how does being in the middle east twice, make you an expert?  

"far from it I know personally what CDN forces have, are, and will do in the future"

Are you a mind reader fortune teller?  How is it that you have insite into the future of the CF. Maybe your friends Paul Martin? or have speical access some serect CDN army websites      I‘ve been to the UK 3 times for a total of 18 months, that certianly hasn‘t given me any insite to the what will happen in UK in the FUTURE....


As for me, I‘ve live in Canada and keep up with the CF and have friends in CF, should be in when the trades open in March. And as you can guess its infantry.


----------



## Spr.Earl (30 Jan 2004)

Mark C    
Right on!

But if we do stay we should start making up the Reconstruction Team‘s i.e. All the Engineer trade‘s including E.O.D. with Light Inf. and
Light Armour support for Team protection and start the rebuilding outside of Kabul as was the plan.

But!!!Non of the promised money from the World has been forth coming   
All‘s going to Iraq just because of Oil!


----------



## cdnguy215 (31 Jan 2004)

"I am not an expert at middle east affairs but there is a thing in the US Army that is called "Right of Passage" , or similar to walking a mile in someone‘s moccasins, etc. Please don‘t lecture me ...been there done that..."

If your going make big statements like this one below, and of course someone is going call you it.
here what you posted S_Baker

"I never infered that Canada was not helping, far from it I know personally what CDN forces have, are, and will do in the future because I was in the middle east twice, how about you?"

So I ask again, how do you know the Future of CF, and what does being in the middle east have anything to do with it?

And then in your last you state "but then like you I am not privy to CDN defense policy so I could be wrong" so if your not privy to CDN defence policy... how can you know the future of the CF.  And again I think was you how said that unless live in country you can‘t really know what‘s going on, and since you said a few posts ago that left Canada 20plus years.  You don‘t really know what‘s going on here anymore, so your comments about Canada are no different than mine or any Canadian‘s comments on the US.


----------



## Jarnhamar (31 Jan 2004)

What kind of message would we send the world if we turned tail and ran after a suicide bomber attacked us?  The loss of one of our soldiers is horrible. How many more of our guys would die if they knew we would leave after an attack happened. Want the canadians out of bosnia or cypres? Kill a few with a car bomb. Don‘t like canadians having an embassy in whatever counry, kill a few canadians and send them packing.
Thats a pandora‘s box. You‘d be putting a bullseye on every canadian soldier abroad.


----------



## FlightSergeantRose (31 Jan 2004)

Daamn right, we can‘t leave a country because some freak blows himself up. Just think how it would look to the rest of the world. 
Unfortunately, there are some people who think we should leave, now that someone has been killed.


----------



## George Wallace (1 Feb 2004)

*Dear Alice*

Editorial  in Ottawa Sun, 1 February 2004


"*The day Cpl. Murphy died*

Cpl. Jamie Murphy died Tuesday at the hands of a suicide bomber on the filthy streets of a decimated city torn to shreds by a generation of war. Half a world away in Conception Harbour, Nfld., his grieving mother Alice was haunted by a question. 

Why, she asked, did her boy have to die in a country like Afghanistan whose people "don‘t want peace or even know what it means?" Why, indeed. 

Prime Minister Paul Martin said the question, while understandable, was "one I wish she didn‘t have to ask." Well, she did ask, and from a grateful nation she is owed an answer. 

Dear Alice: 

Most of us never got to meet Jamie, by all accounts a fine soldier, a good friend and partner and a devoted, loving son. 

You‘d know far better than us what caused him to don a soldier‘s uniform, but we suspect Jamie was like so many young men and women drawn by an irresistible urge to serve their country. 

Not all of us hear that call of duty, fewer still are drawn to act upon it. But Jamie did. 

Your son served this country even though it meant leaving the comforts of home and enduring a prolonged separation from those he loved. 

His calling took him to a world utterly shattered by war, where hatred is drenched in blood and where people‘s hopes and dreams have been reduced to dust along with their homes. 

Alice, we‘ll never know for sure, but we‘d bet Jamie saw that he was making a difference in Afghanistan. He‘d see it in the eyes of strangers who, for the first time in a generation, were beginning to see hope for peace in their homeland. He‘d see it in the smile of a child going to school for the first time or in the face of a mother who had begun to feel the warm embrace of security for her family, thanks largely to a military presence comprised of Jamie and his colleagues. 

This week, as he approached the end of that posting, he died -- tragically, violently, under the most awful circumstances. 

Alice, we cannot begin to find the words sufficient to console you as your family grieves its terrible loss, except to say that Jamie died a hero. No, he didn‘t die while plunging into a river to save a drowning child or pulling someone from a raging house fire. 

But he died doing what he knew was right -- trying to restore civility and dignity to a people who had long lost both. He did it even though they were complete strangers to him and even though there were terrible risks from those who saw him as an enemy of tyranny and terrorism. 

Alice, he died ... cruelly and incomprehensibly. But heroically too. 

Pull the boys out? Bring them all home? You‘re right to ask, Alice. But we believe the Afghan people do want peace, they do know what it means, and we suspect Jamie believed that more than most of us because he saw it with his own eyes. 

Alice, soldiers like Jamie are the last hope of the people of Afghanistan. Jamie died, but his death was not in vain. 
"


----------



## cdnguy215 (1 Feb 2004)

Well S_Baker do you have any answer besides "just for you highspeed".  Your quick to jump on anyone who makes and statement you think BS, or untrue so just some where in between.  So you do the same when your call on remarks that somewhere in between.


----------



## cdnguy215 (1 Feb 2004)

No need to get your panties in a knot.      Don‘t want to get off on the wrong foot with my first few posts here.  Your the one who made the statements about knowing the future and in‘s and out of CF.  Maybe being a Major your not use too it.  :blotto:  

We can leave the subject if you don‘t want to answer it.  Hopefully you‘ll still reply my other posts.  Oh and your dog thing did remind of someone...a major I think he said saw.


----------



## Franko (2 Feb 2004)

infatry031...wait until the guys get a load of you...they‘re going to have a field day!   

S Baker...carry on

Regards


----------



## btk_joker (2 Feb 2004)

Hey Infantry, maybe you should express your absolutely correct opinions and overflowing knowledge to your instructors when you start basic, I‘m sure they‘d love to sit down and learn from you.

  :sniper:  J. Lightfoot


----------



## Franko (3 Feb 2004)

Super quiet. Reconstruction is going on and people are returning.

Good signs...am I right?

Regards


----------



## Acorn (21 Dec 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> *There was no conflict in Afghanistan before we showed up*, so no, it's not peacekeeping.   It's not even peacemaking, although that term comes closer to describing it.   It's a stability op.



Pardon?


----------



## 48Highlander (21 Dec 2005)

Acorn said:
			
		

> Pardon?



Yes?

In case you forgot, we had troops take part in the initial invasion.  Technicaly we helped start the conflict, so no, there WAS no conflict there before we showed up.  We certainly didn't say "hey, we're sending some snipers and the JTF2 to help you guys keep the peace".


----------



## Acorn (21 Dec 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> In case you forgot, we had troops take part in the initial invasion.   Technicaly we helped start the conflict, so no, there WAS no conflict there before we showed up.   We certainly didn't say "hey, we're sending some snipers and the JTF2 to help you guys keep the peace".



OK, now I know that all that conflict going on since 1979 (or '92 if you count the time from Soviet withdrawal in 1989 to the rise of the Taliban as a period of peace) wasn't really conflict. Thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## Infanteer (21 Dec 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Yes?
> 
> In case you forgot, we had troops take part in the initial invasion.   Technicaly we helped start the conflict, so no, there WAS no conflict there before we showed up.   We certainly didn't say "hey, we're sending some snipers and the JTF2 to help you guys keep the peace".



Umm...look up Ahmed Shah Masood.   That was before 9/11.   Hell, look up the battles of Bishqab, Mazar, Konduz, and Sayed Slim Kalay for post 9/11 examples of a conflict that existed before most Canadians knew where Afghanistan was.

Here is some reading material since you have a tendency to pull history out of your ass.  As well, I suggest you pick up Steve Coll's Ghost Wars to get an idea of what's been going on in Afghanistan in the last half-century.


----------



## Infanteer (21 Dec 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Alright, wonderful, they had a few problems.   Point is, we didn't go there to settle their problems, and the conflict we're fighting now has little to do with any difficulties they may have had before we invaded.   By the time we got involved, the Taliban had become pretty succesfull at suppressing anyone who didn't agree with them.



WTF are you smoking?  Do you really have any idea about what you are talking about?  I'm sure you are just making this up as you go.  The conflict we are involved with now has everything to do with the events of the last 20 years.  Do us a favour and read the literature I provided you with and quit wasting bandwidth with stupid statements like that one....


----------



## 48Highlander (21 Dec 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> WTF are you smoking?  Do you really have any idea about what you are talking about?  I'm sure you are just making this up as you go.  The conflict we are involved with now has everything to do with the events of the last 20 years.  Do us a favour and read the literature I provided you with and quit wasting bandwidth with stupid statements like that one....



 :argument:

Alright man, this discussion is getting WAY too intelectual for me.


----------



## Infanteer (21 Dec 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Alright man, this discussion is getting WAY too intelectual for me.



Nice cop out; I'll take this as a sign that you are admitting that you are talking through your hat.

I don't see it as intellectual - you are making groundless statements that bear no resemblance to reality.  Put up or shut up.


----------



## 48Highlander (21 Dec 2005)

A)  I don't much like arguing with people who go about slinging personal attacks without much provocation.

B)  I DEFFINITELY don't want to argue with you when you get into your "I'm the expert, I know everything, so y'all best STFU" mindset.

So I'm going to bow out before this gets any more ugly.  ok?


----------



## Infanteer (21 Dec 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> A)   I don't much like arguing with people who go about slinging personal attacks without much provocation.
> 
> B)   I DEFFINITELY don't want to argue with you when you get into your "I'm the expert, I know everything, so y'all best STFU" mindset.
> 
> So I'm going to bow out before this gets any more ugly.   ok?



Oh, okay - blame it all on me.  I'm not attacking you (I've yet to see any personal references), I've simply pointed out that your argument sucks.  You can accuse me of having an "I know everything mindset" but the fact is that you are making claims and you won't (or can't) substantiate them.  We generally prefer arguments to be factually and historically correct on these forums, so you can understand why you were questioned.

To spell it out clearly, you were challenged on your statements of:



			
				48Highlander said:
			
		

> Hardly.  There was no conflict in Afghanistan before we showed up,



...and:



			
				48Highlander said:
			
		

> Technicaly we helped start the conflict, so no, there WAS no conflict there before we showed up.



This doesn't have to "get ugly" - explain how these are true and quit deflecting the argument by playing the wounded bird because I challenged you.


----------



## 48Highlander (21 Dec 2005)

Oh, ok, well if THAT is all I'm being challanged on, I've already admitted that it was an inaccurate statement.  Sure, there was conflict there before.  I didn't mean to suggest that the whole place had been one happy-happy hug-fest for all of recorded history, so I'm sorry if that's the impression you got.  What I was trying to get across is the idea that we didn't go there to help them settle their problems.  Since you don't seem to have a problem with that statement, I'm not sure why you're getting all worked up here.


And just for the record, the following DO count as personal attacks:



> Here is some reading material since you have a tendency to pull history out of your ***.
> 
> WTF are you smoking?
> 
> I'm sure you are just making this up as you go.


----------



## Infanteer (21 Dec 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Oh, ok, well if THAT is all I'm being challanged on, I've already admitted that it was an inaccurate statement.   Sure, there was conflict there before.



Okay - that's what I was looking for.  



> What I was trying to get across is the idea that we didn't go there to help them settle their problems.



I think we did.  In a post 9/11 environment, we (especially the US) decided to quit allowing the ISI to drive Western policy on Afghanistan and we joined the Northern Alliance in helping them to win what was a decade long civil war in which the Taliban had arisen.  All of the reasons we are in Afghanistan were consequences of the proxy war started in the 1980's and never really stopped, so in essence we are there to help them settle their problems.  We aren't doing it in a neutral, blue-beret fashion though; we've picked a side that suits our interests.



> And just for the record, the following DO count as personal attacks



Calling somebody an idiot because of a simple disagreement is a personal attack (which will be overlooked if provoked).  I never attacked you, I only questioned where you were getting your information from....  :-*


----------



## 48Highlander (21 Dec 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I think we did.  In a post 9/11 environment, we (especially the US) decided to quit allowing the ISI to drive Western policy on Afghanistan and we joined the Northern Alliance in helping them to win what was a decade long civil war in which the Taliban had arisen.  All of the reasons we are in Afghanistan were consequences of the proxy war started in the 1980's and never really stopped, so in essence we are there to help them settle their problems.  We aren't doing it in a neutral, blue-beret fashion though; we've picked a side that suits our interests.



That's....an interesting way of looking at it.  Did we go in to help the NA?  Or did we go in to kick the crap out of the Taliban, and invited the NA to help us do it?  End result is the same, but....


----------



## Infanteer (21 Dec 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> That's....an interesting way of looking at it.   Did we go in to help the NA?   Or did we go in to kick the crap out of the Taliban, and invited the NA to help us do it?   End result is the same, but....



If we were only interested in "kicking the crap out of the Taliban" then we would have been gone a long time ago - perhaps we wouldn't have even needed to go there in the first place.   By the time conventional US and Coalition Forces had arrived on the ground, the Northern Alliance (sans Masood) had largely driven the Taliban from Afghanstan.   The West contributed SF teams and airpower, but that shouldn't be seen as decisive (see the Biddle article I linked to earlier).   Up until about the 2000-2001 timeframe, we in the West largely supported the Taliban in an effort to see a unified government in Afghanistan.   It is only with the rise of Osama bin Laden that opinion gradually changed - after 9/11 we jumped onto a previously ignored Northern Alliance team and helped them win the fight.

We supported the Northern Alliance in creating the government you see today.   All the big figures in Afghanistan were anti-Taliban fighters before we even knew where Afghanistan was.   Hamid Karzai opposed the Taliban because the assassinated his father.   There are some anti-Taliban Pashtuns who opposed the Taliban along tribal lines.   Guys like Dostum and Ismail Khan opposed the Taliban on ethnic lines.

You said this is a stability op, which is correct - we are there to ensure that the fruits of a Northern Alliance victory do not go to waste (as victory over the communists did a decade ago).  We needed to sort out Afghanistans problems because they had become our problem.   We are very much there to help the NA as they were friendly to our interests of rooting out Al Qa'ida and stemming the spread of militant Sunni Islam to Central Asia (which is why Russia, Iran and China also happen to support the Northern Alliance).   Operation Enduring Freedom and ISAF and the ongoing counterinsurgency are merely chapters in a long struggle.


----------



## Britney Spears (21 Dec 2005)

Hey 48th:





and guess who's on the cover?


----------



## McG (27 Dec 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> That's....an interesting way of looking at it.  Did we go in to help the NA?  Or did we go in to kick the crap out of the Taliban, and invited the NA to help us do it?  End result is the same, but....





			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> If we were only interested in "kicking the crap out of the Taliban" then we would have been gone a long time ago - perhaps we wouldn't have even needed to go there in the first place.


We went into Afghanistan to defeat the head of AQ and the TB that was protecting it.  We are are still there to support the Afghani people to rebuild their government & its institutions.  If we did not stay to do this, the TB would have scurried back in on our departure like cockroaches when the lights go out.  We did not stay to hand the country to the Northern Alliance; we are still there to ensure that the "crap" remains permanently kicked out of the TB.


----------



## Infanteer (27 Dec 2005)

MCG said:
			
		

> We did not stay to hand the country to the Northern Alliance



But that's what we essentially did, and that's why the Insurgency continues to simmer to the South, no?

From here



> There are, essentially, three enemy forces operating against the Afghan government and its Coalition partners. Gulbuddin Hekmatyar’s Hizb-I Islami Gulbuddin (HIG) organization, still seeking to influence the brokerage of power in Kabul, operates from areas east of the city and still mounts usually ineffective attacks on ISAF, OEF, and Afghan National Army forces in the capital. Taliban military formations have been completely reduced by OEF operating methods and appear to have shifted from guerilla warfare to pinprick terrorist attacks, usually in ethnically Pashtun areas in the southeast. Al Qaeda provides training and equipment to both HIG and the Taliban. Additionally, al Qaeda mounts its own limited raids on Coalition forces located on the border with Pakistan. These raids appear to employ the well-equipped remnants of al Qaeda’s “conventional” formations which worked with the Taliban prior to 2001. Unlike HIG and al Qaeda, the Taliban are still trying to create a parallel government to garner popular support in Pashtun areas with the aim of retaking the country. At this point, the synergy of HIG, the Taliban, and al Qaeda has been unable to significantly influence the direction that the Afghan people are taking under the Karzai government.6



It is fairly obvious that Hekmatyar, the Taliban and Al Qa'ida Brigade 55 are not participating in Afghanistans government - these were the opponents of the Northern Alliance prior to 9/11.  It was the Northern Alliance who reaped the benefit of Western intervention, allowing them to take the reigns of the state while folks like Hekmatyar and Mullah Omar were sent packing.

Sure, we may call the badguys cockroaches and think that there is some sort of moral victory to be achieved with voting, but we need to remember who is at the head of the pyramid in an Afghan society that still runs off of tribalism and ethnicity - we traded bad dudes like Mullah Omar for bad dudes like this guy, who aren't really much better; they are just more friendly to our interests for the time being.


----------



## Infanteer (1 Jan 2006)

KevinB said:
			
		

> 1) We are not occupying Afghanistan - we are supporting the Afghan government - that is a huge difference from the Colonial activities of the British and the actions of the USSR.



Technically, that's what the Soviets were doing - they went in to support a friendly regime.  Even after they pulled out in 1989, Najibullah continued to govern, sparking warlords like Dostum and Hekmatyar to keep fighting for control.  In our case, we have friendly regime as well (in a non-purjorative sense); only this time it happens to be a democratic one.  The Brits tended to do the same after the occupation thing didn't work out.


----------



## McG (2 Jan 2006)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Technically, that's what the Soviets were doing - they went in to support a friendly regime.


How much freedom did the Soviets give the Afghanis to define that regime in thier own terms?  We have even given the Afghanis the option to replace the top guy in a national election.


----------



## Infanteer (2 Jan 2006)

MCG said:
			
		

> How much freedom did the Soviets give the Afghanis to define that regime in thier own terms?  We have even given the Afghanis the option to replace the top guy in a national election.



The conduct and end-state achieved is irrelevant - the Soviets were backing the Karmal/Najibullah government which existed before they invaded and after they left (1978-1992).  We are doing the same.  The fact that we are propping up a desirable government (to us; I'm willing to bet the Taliban or a significant chunk of Pakistan sees it as desirable) doesn't change the fact that we are supporting an Afghan government that serves our interests both in terms of humanitarian ideals and security.  The strings on the puppet may be much looser than when the Kremlin was there, but I fail to see a difference in what we are doing and what the Soviets did in political terms.


----------



## KevinB (2 Jan 2006)

Please tell me you've been on a bender buddy?

  Last time I looked we are not dropping butterfly mines or exterminating villages that harbour anti-government fighters...
We obey Afghan laws - and act in support of a lawfully established govvernment.

  I'm not going to say we are Mother Terressa - but the USSR's politcal rationale for occupying Afghan is not consistant with the support both politcally and militarily of the Coalition.


----------



## enfield (2 Jan 2006)

Equating the political actions is not the same as equating the ways and means - the politics may be the same, but the morals are not. I don't believe Infanteer is suggesting the US/NATO mission in Afghanistan is morally the same as the Soviet occupation, but the grand political scheme is similar. 

I dislike the idea that we somehow act above the _real politik_ that has run the world for 5,000 years; That somehow in 2006 Canada and our allies operate on some plateau of righteousness in our motivations. I think an in-depth examination of what NATO/US are doing in Afghanistan could bear a lot of similarities to the campaigns Britain waged there a century ago - local governments, colonial troops, moral authority, political interest, etc (including the colourful military features of regulars, local troops, irregulars, special operations, spies, mercenaries, PMCs, and CIMIC) - or a dozen other colonial frontiers, going back to Macedon.


----------



## Infanteer (2 Jan 2006)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Last time I looked we are not dropping butterfly mines or exterminating villages that harbour anti-government fighters...
> We obey Afghan laws - and act in support of a lawfully established govvernment.



Again Kev, conduct and endstate is irrelevant to the comparion - I was looking at the two in political terms and not moral ones.  The Soviets were in country backing a friendly government and we are in country backing a friendly government.  Nothing more.

I, like Enfield, drew an issue with the occupation/support dichotomy that tried to set OEF/ISAF up as something unique.


----------



## Gunner (2 Jan 2006)

> The Soviets were in country backing a friendly government and we are in country backing a friendly government.



Soviets backed a puppet regime.  We were backing an internationally agreed upon leader to lead a failed state to stability and we are now backing a democratically elected leader and parliament.  

Large difference from a moral and international perspective.


----------



## Infanteer (2 Jan 2006)

Gunner said:
			
		

> Soviets backed a puppet regime.



Well, the only thing that kept Karzai around for the first few years was Western military forces, so you can't really lump the "prop up" on the Soviets.  As I said before, the strings were tighter with the Kremlin, but that is only shades of the same colour.  Remember, Najibullah's government was able to survive 3 or so years after the Soviet Union departed.  As well his predecessor Karmal, despite coming to power with backing from the Soviets, managed to run a de facto recognized government for a few years before the Soviets intervened.

Just because we didn't like the:

A) Soviets
B) Afghan Communist Regime that was in bed with the Soviets

Doesn't change the fact that politically, then and now were the same in political terms (supporting a friendly government).  I can't call the Soviet invasion a true occupation as their was a semblence of an Afghan government, a semblence of an Aghan military and a group of Afghanis who supported the Communist faction - just like we see now with OEF/ISAF.


----------



## meni0n (2 Jan 2006)

The west didn't exactly back the taliban but was waiting for them to mature to a more moderate muslim regime as Saudi Arabia did. Funny thing is, Afghanis enjoyed more personal freedom under Soviet backed governement ( women could go to school, work and not wear burkhas ), yet that governement was evil but when the taliban introduced all of the human rights restictions, there were very mild objections coming from the white house, canada or any other western country. Just goes to show you, foreign policy is always ruled by self-interests and thinking otherwise that we're good and pure and out to save the world is just living in a magical world.


----------



## Gunner (2 Jan 2006)

> Well, the only thing that kept Karzai around for the first few years was Western military forces, so you can't really lump the "prop up" on the Soviets.  As I said before, the strings were tighter with the Kremlin, but that is only shades of the same colour.



Infanteer, that is a pretty tenuous argument trying to lump the Soviet installed regime against Karzai and a UN sponsored, internationally approved, stability process commencing in December 2001, the Loyal Jurga in 2002, and democratic nationwide Presidential election in October 2004 and Parliamentary elections earlier this year.  Shades?  Difference is black and white.



> Remember, Najibullah's government was able to survive 3 or so years after the Soviet Union departed.



Remember, the Soviet Union continued massive support to Najibullah's government.



> Immediately after the Soviet departure, Najibullah pulled down the façade of shared government. He declared an emergency, removed Sharq and the other non-party ministers from the cabinet. The Soviet Union responded with a flood of military and economic supplies. Sufficient food and fuel were made available for the next two difficult winters.
> 
> Much of the military equipment belonging to Soviet units evacuating Eastern Europe was shipped to Afghanistan. Assured adequate supplies, the Afghan Air Force, which had developed tactics minimizing the threat from Stinger missiles, now deterred mass attacks against the cities. Medium-range missiles, particularly the Scud, were successfully launched from Kabul in the defense of Jalalabad, 145 kilometres miles away.
> 
> ...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Najibullah



> Just because we didn't like the:
> A) Soviets
> B) Afghan Communist Regime that was in bed with the Soviets



True, we (or Ronald Reagon and the US) didn't like the Soviet's, but neither did most of the Afghani's.



> Doesn't change the fact that politically, then and now were the same in political terms (supporting a friendly government).  I can't call the Soviet invasion a true occupation as their was a semblence of an Afghan government, a semblence of an Aghan military and a group of Afghanis who supported the Communist faction - just like we see now with OEF/ISAF.



I don't agree with your assessment.  If you were comparing the Soviet Union in Afghanistan with the US in Iraq it would be a much clearer analogy.

Cheers,


----------



## enfield (3 Jan 2006)

Gunner said:
			
		

> Infanteer, that is a pretty tenuous argument trying to lump the Soviet installed regime against Karzai and a UN sponsored, internationally approved, stability process commencing in December 2001, the Loyal Jurga in 2002, and democratic nationwide Presidential election in October 2004 and Parliamentary elections earlier this year.



"UN Sponsored" and "Internationally approved" are two malleable and ambiguous terms. The invasion of Kosovo was neither - what does this mean for Canada? I'm pretty sure in 1983 the USSR could have drummed up a long list of nations that support what they were doing in Afghanistan - Bulgaria, Hungary, East Germany, Uganda... 
Remove US troops and support, and see how much the UN and the International Community really mean in Afghanistan. Does Karzai still have US bodyguards? 
The international community approved the best available option (Karzai), which was dressed up in the proper window dressing of elections by the US. He's probably the best thing for the country in decades, but that doesn't make the political process different. I don't know the details of the Afghani electoral process, but I would be surprised if it didn't reflect pre-existing ethnic and tribal politics and Karzai and his government was made to meet these realities. 

I saw our Afghani operation go something like this:
Failed state becomes a threat to us. 
We invade, and help overthrow the existing regime.
We assist in installing a new regime, and back that new regime with force of arms, securing its capital region and now helping in offensive operations.

Morals make a nice background and justification, but we invaded Afghanistan for specific reasons of national interest in 2001, we deployed a stabilization force a couple years later for the same reasons, and now we are moving onto broader combat operations. All of which I applaud. 
We have an interest in the stability of Afghanistan - and so did the USSR, and so did Britain and Russia in 1900. We are using force to support and encourage that stability. So did the Soviets, and the British, and whoever else has marched through. We are trying to make the world a better place through liberal democracy and elections. The USSR was using state ownership, command economy, and authoritarianism. 

I agree with everything Canada has done in Afghanistan, and I know we have carried it out with a unheard of degree of humanism, restraint, and accountability, but I like to be realistic about why we're doing what we're doing, and the real background. I thought that a foreign policy based in values and morals went out with Lloyd Axworthy and that we are trying to escape the idea of neutral peacekeeper. 



			
				Gunner said:
			
		

> I don't agree with your assessment.  If you were comparing the Soviet Union in Afghanistan with the US in Iraq it would be a much clearer analogy.


Why? They've had UN approved elections, and the government in Iraq has sovereignty and international recognition, and arguable has more of a state apparatus in place than Afghanistan. The planned End State for Iraq and Afghanistan are exactly the same. 

I don't know why we have to pretend like we're doing something new. We're doing it a lot better, and a lot nicer, then ever before - but its the same bag of tricks.


----------



## Infanteer (3 Jan 2006)

Gunner said:
			
		

> Infanteer, that is a pretty tenuous argument trying to lump the Soviet installed regime against Karzai and a UN sponsored, internationally approved, stability process commencing in December 2001, the Loyal Jurga in 2002, and democratic nationwide Presidential election in October 2004 and Parliamentary elections earlier this year.  Shades?  Difference is black and white.



Well, I'm not trying to point to the legitimacy of the regime in our eyes.  As Enfield pointed out, the new government seems to be better then the last two, but it doesn't change the fact that we put it there because we wanted it there.  Democracy sure seemed to be flourishing in Afghanistan prior to US Special Forces soldiers setting foot on Afghan soil.

I still can't figure out why everybody is focusing on the moral aspect - as I've said before; its the political one and if we are only going to define de facto regimes as ones we like, then we're going to get a one sided view of things.  The Soviets liked (and propped up) the Communist regime because they liked it.  We back Karzai and the Constitutional Loya Jirga because we like it.  In between then, everybody got bored of Afghanistan so Pakistan got to put its favorites in, the Taliban.  Throw in Central Asian oil and metastasizing fundamentalist Islam and you can see why the call this place the cockpit of the world.



> Remember, the Soviet Union continued massive support to Najibullah's government.



...and we haven't supported Afghanistan's new government?  

As I asked before, how vibrant was democracy prior to overflying B-52's?  Do you think that the Northern Alliance, with the loss of Mossoud, would have had a lick of a chance of taking the Taliban down had their houseguest not spoiled it for them by bringing in the West?  Shortly before he was assassinated, Massoud was considering pulling out of the Panjshir Valley in the face of Taliban pressure - something that 6 Soviet divisional level assaults couldn't do.



> True, we (or Ronald Reagon and the US) didn't like the Soviet's, but neither did most of the Afghani's.



There seems to be a proportion of Afghani's who don't like us either.  Granted, because we aren't blowing their kids up with toy-shaped mines, its not going to be as extreme, but I still fail to see the difference between "White Man on the Oxus" then and "White Man on the Oxus" now.



> I don't agree with your assessment.  If you were comparing the Soviet Union in Afghanistan with the US in Iraq it would be a much clearer analogy.



There is a difference between OIF and OEF/ISAF?  If there is, it fooled me....


----------



## Gunner (3 Jan 2006)

> "UN Sponsored" and "Internationally approved" are two malleable and ambiguous terms. The invasion of Kosovo was neither - what does this mean for Canada? I'm pretty sure in 1983 the USSR could have drummed up a long list of nations that support what they were doing in Afghanistan - Bulgaria, Hungary, East Germany, Uganda...



It's not a perfect system but it is the one we have.  We, as have many other countries, ratified entry into the UN.  What other case do we have for a just cause?  The remainder were simply puppet states of the Soviets.  



> Remove US troops and support, and see how much the UN and the International Community really mean in Afghanistan. Does Karzai still have US bodyguards?



Afghanistan is slowly getting to its feet.  It's not perfect but what is the alternate?  Allowing ot lapse into a failed state and turning it back to the terrorist.



> The international community approved the best available option (Karzai), which was dressed up in the proper window dressing of elections by the US. He's probably the best thing for the country in decades, but that doesn't make the political process different. I don't know the details of the Afghani electoral process, but I would be surprised if it didn't reflect pre-existing ethnic and tribal politics and Karzai and his government was made to meet these realities.



It wasn't just the international community, it was also the key domestic actors.  Karzai was elected by majority of Afghani's which was quite an accomplishment considering the multiethnic make up of the country.  You can find the results here.

http://www.jemb.org/



> We have an interest in the stability of Afghanistan - and so did the USSR, and so did Britain and Russia in 1900. We are using force to support and encourage that stability. So did the Soviets, and the British, and whoever else has marched through. We are trying to make the world a better place through liberal democracy and elections. The USSR was using state ownership, command economy, and authoritarianism.



You don't see a big difference in your statements between the two or do you just classify it simply as meddling in the affairs of another country?



> I thought that a foreign policy based in values and morals went out with Lloyd Axworthy and that we are trying to escape the idea of neutral peacekeeper.



I don't see a realist foreign policy for us for quite some time my friend.



> Why? They've had UN approved elections, and the government in Iraq has sovereignty and international recognition, and arguable has more of a state apparatus in place than Afghanistan. The planned End State for Iraq and Afghanistan are exactly the same.



No, in terms of the US and the Soviet Union both invaded a sovereign country with relatively questionable authority to do so.  End state is hopefully the same.



> I don't know why we have to pretend like we're doing something new. We're doing it a lot better, and a lot nicer, then ever before - but its the same bag of tricks.



We are arguing colours or shades of colours.  Not whether history repeats itself or not.


----------



## Infanteer (3 Jan 2006)

Enfield said:
			
		

> I don't know why we have to pretend like we're doing something new. We're doing it a lot better, and a lot nicer, then ever before - but its the same bag of tricks.



Same ole bag of tricks; heh.  Here is my crystal ball - down the road, we are going to forget about Afghanistan - who knows, Latin America will be the new feature on CNN.  Anyways, it is going to still be a pile of rocks and they are going to come to the UN and plead for money to keep democracy alive.  Of course, it's election year and giving billions of dollars to other people isn't very popular, so they will be sent back with empty stockings.  Then, some warlord, seeing that someone else is getting the big piece of whatever pie is left, is going to get some nice new bang-sticks - it won't be hard; Russia to the North, Iran West, Pakistan South and India/China to the East.  Everybody is going to pick their sides and we are going to see the game played out for the umpteenth time.

Infact, I'm willing to wager that when the West has managed to blow itself to pieces, those Afghan tribesmen will still be doing what they were doing 2,500 years ago when Alexander came waltzing through.  I guess they'll get the last laugh....


----------



## McG (4 Jan 2006)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Doesn't change the fact that politically, then and now were the same in political terms (supporting a friendly government).


"Then" was supporting a government defined by the Soviets.  "Now" we have given the Afghani people the power to define the government that we are supporting.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> As I asked before, how vibrant was democracy prior to overflying B-52's?


No.  It was not.
. . . but, this is only relevant if you want us to believe that we invaded Afghanistan to introduce democracy.  The Soviets invaded to prop-up communism.  We invaded to defeat an enemy that was sheltering/supporing an organization that was actively attacking the west.

Something we learned too late after the First World War, was that if you do not rebuild the defeated nation(s) then you risk another war.  (A fact more true in Afghanistan where the defeated enemy still lingers on the country's fringes).  It could be suggested that we are currently involved in a Marshal Plan for Afghanistan.

Yes, re-building government did require an interim government that was selected not entirely by Afghanis.  You seem fixated on this interim government despite the fact that we have since given the Afghanis a chance to select their own.


----------



## valleyhills (12 Feb 2006)

This article shares my sentiments regarding Canada’s role in Afghanistan.
But I’m interested to hear some informed views regarding this editorial, from current & past members of the Canadian military.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Toronto Star
Link: http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1139611812882
Date: February 12, 2006
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is our mission about preserving our way of life, or helping U.S. extend its supremacy? asks Linda McQuaig


Feb. 12, 2006. 01:00 AM
LINDA MCQUAIG


As we revel in our commitment to free speech, we barely seem to notice the limited range of things we actually discuss with all this free speech.

Take the question: Why are there so many suicide bombers in the Muslim world?

Of course, there's a rote answer to this that we hear all the time: Muslims have a culture of death; their blind rage against our freedom leads them to sacrifice their lives to spite us.

Another explanation — one you rarely hear — is that they're blowing themselves up to fight military incursions into their lands. (In this sense, they're not that different from people throughout history who sacrificed their lives to defend territory against foreign armies.)

One person who's been saying this — and getting little attention — is Robert Pape, a political scientist at the University of Chicago. Based on the comprehensive databank he's developed as director of the Chicago Project on Suicide Terrorism, Pape concludes there's been a strategic goal common to nearly every act of suicide terrorism in the past 25 years: "To compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland."

If we paid more attention to this, and less to the self-satisfying babble about our superior Western ways, we probably wouldn't be increasing our contingent of Canadian troops in Afghanistan. 

Our troops are attempting a number of things in Afghanistan, including helping the Afghan people build a country. But we are also there to wage war, to kill "scumbags" who "detest our freedoms," as our top military leader, Gen. Rick Hillier, has said.

Of course, the main reason we're in Afghanistan is because the Americans want us there to support their "war on terror," and we see this as a way to make up to them for not joining their invasion of Iraq. 

But what is the U.S. actually up to over there? Along with Britain, it has a long history of intervening in that energy-rich part of the world. Washington is currently beefing up its presence in the Middle East and central Asia, including 14 permanent military bases in Iraq and nine in Afghanistan, in order to increase its "forward presence" in areas it considers economically and militarily strategic.

Along with chasing down Al Qaeda, Washington has long been interested in securing a safe route for pipelines to move energy from the Caspian Sea area through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Arabian Sea. 

So is Canada's mission in Afghanistan really about preserving our "way of life," or about helping Washington extend its economic and military hegemony?

Canadian Maj.-Gen. Andrew Leslie, echoing Hillier, has talked about Canada's role in Afghanistan as a 20-year commitment fraught with danger: "There are things worth fighting for. There are things worth dying for. There are things worth killing for."

True. But I doubt Canadians would consider Washington's desire for global dominance to be one of those things.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Feb 2006)

Before we go any further, could you provide the source of this material, and links.  That just provides the rest of us with some sort of proof of its authenticity.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Feb 2006)

valleyhills said:
			
		

> Of course, the main reason we're in Afghanistan is because the Americans want us there to support their "war on terror," and we see this as a way to make up to them for not joining their invasion of Iraq.


Sounds like something I have heard somewhere before........Carlton University......York University.......Simone Fraser.......UBC........NDP........


			
				valleyhills said:
			
		

> But what is the U.S. actually up to over there? Along with Britain, it has a long history of intervening in that energy-rich part of the world. Washington is currently beefing up its presence in the Middle East and central Asia, including 14 permanent military bases in Iraq and nine in Afghanistan, in order to increase its "forward presence" in areas it considers economically and militarily strategic.


I haven't heard any mention of "permanent military bases" being set up in Iraq or Afghanistan.  Nor did I ever know of such a large number of "energy resources" being found in Afghanistan.


			
				valleyhills said:
			
		

> Along with chasing down Al Qaeda, Washington has long been interested in securing a safe route for pipelines to move energy from the Caspian Sea area through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Arabian Sea.


This looks to me like someone needs a geography lesson.  There are much shorter routes, more cost effective/cheaper routes, such a pipeline could take to deliver former Soviet Union crude to Russia and the European markets.


			
				valleyhills said:
			
		

> So is Canada's mission in Afghanistan really about preserving our "way of life," or about helping Washington extend its economic and military hegemony?





			
				valleyhills said:
			
		

> ..... But I doubt Canadians would consider Washington's desire for global dominance to be one of those things.


I wonder where we have heard all this rhetoric before?


----------



## HDE (12 Feb 2006)

Suggestion:

    Check out a few of McQuaig's past columns.  You'll note that really thoughtful analysis isn't her strong suit.  She plays to the anti-American, anti-conservative, both large and small c, anti-corporate worldview.  By all means read her work, but keep in mind that she knows what the"facts" are before she even begins doing the research

For example:

The U.S. "carpet bombed" Baghdad  :'(
Scandinavian countries are models of what Canada should aspire to.  I'd love to raise the issue of how much of their GDP is spent on their defence 
There are the "elites", financial, political, media and so on, then there are the "masses".    No cliches there!

I'd imagine she and "Polaris" Staples would be soulmates  :


----------



## Long in the tooth (12 Feb 2006)

More left wing head in the sand phantom economics adle pate claptrap.  Whenever I see this name on a column I avoid it.  Just Shoot The Hippo!


----------



## Tow Tripod (12 Feb 2006)

Linda,
That is a really neat trick. Being able to talk out your backside and attempt to make any sense what so ever!!!! I wish people like Linda could come to Afghanistan and listen to some of the stories about this country prior to the start of Operation Enduring Freedom. To be blunt Linda, if you where in this country prior to October 6, 2002 I'm pretty sure that you would have ended up at a end of a long rope and your feet off the ground.(If you know what I mean) I doubt many Canadians want the former Taliban regime back in power any time soon.

Have a nice day!!!!!!!

Tow tripod


----------



## HDE (12 Feb 2006)

No doubt Linda would also be absolutely outraged at the Talibam treatment of women!  She appears to have landed herself a fairly comfortable existence being a "commentator" on just about everything without having to take actual responsibilty for anything.  It would be useful if she'd, at very least, put some research into her writing, however I'd imagine she plays well to the crowd she caters to.


----------



## Cannonfodder (12 Feb 2006)

I do not agree with her point of view but there are some statements that deserve a further looking into .  Afghanistan is strategically important  in that it separates China from Iran's rich oil reserves   . China's appetite for oil is increasing at 7% per year , as we approach peak oil  these reserves will want to be accessed  by all . The shortest route to Chinese markets is through Afghanistan , a pan Afghanistan pipeline to China is not out of the question . 
  If the viability of your economy is based on cheap oil , you have a vested interest in maintaining a cheap source of supply . True , there are oil sands in Alberta but they are energy intensive and expensive to develop and will only satisfy a portion of the diet of the US . Partially humanitarian , but basically a strategic decision to maintain a prescance in Afghanistan . It could be possible that the US may be trying to deter a  future alliance between Tehran and Beijing , the stakes will only get higher once China becomes involved .


----------



## stukirkpatrick (12 Feb 2006)

> Another explanation — one you rarely hear — is that they're blowing themselves up to fight military incursions into their lands. (In this sense, they're not that different from people throughout history who sacrificed their lives to defend territory against foreign armies.)



I'm surprised the article didn't mention the most basic reason why Western forces ever came to Afghanistan:  Finding and "prosecuting" those responsible for the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001.  The Americans (and Canada) lost too many innocent citizens to just forgive and forget the terrorist acts that al-Qaeda had sponsored and carried out, and the main leaders and planners are still alleged to be in the Afghanistan region somewhere.  They can't be negotiated/reasoned with, because one of their primary beliefs is a traditional hatred of Israel.  There was no other alternative, since if they were left alone, they would continue (and they indeed have continued) to strike at western society.


----------



## armyvern (12 Feb 2006)

A couple of more points/discrepencies with the original article:



> Our troops are attempting a number of things in Afghanistan, including helping the Afghan people build a country. But we are also there to wage war, to kill "scumbags" who "detest our freedoms," as our top military leader, Gen. Rick Hillier, has said.



Those scumbags also detest the freedoms that the great majority of Afghan citizens are now enjoying. Remember the Burka? Unfortunately, as long as the extremists and the Taliban remnants are still roaming the country-side, there is no guarantee of the Afghan nation building it's country free of intervention from those who would wish to send it back to the dark ages once again. 



> Of course, the main reason we're in Afghanistan is because the Americans want us there to support their "war on terror," and we see this as a way to make up to them for not joining their invasion of Iraq.



Hugely inaccurate statement here isn't it? Seeing as how Canada was actively conducting support to Afghanistan operations (via SAL Det etc) in Novemeber 2001 and deployed a Battle Group of troops to Afghanistan in January 2002. Yes, the PPCLI battle Group (Op Apollo) did leave Afghanistan prior to the War In Iraq and Canada did not send in another Battle Group (Op Athena) until the spring of 2003 (after the beginning of the War in Iraq). However; despite there being no "Battle Group" on ground, let me assure you that there were still hundreds of Canadians in-theatre serving with Op Apollo from the time the Op Apollo battle group left in 2002 until the Op Athena Battle Group arrived in the spring of 2003. I was there.. just one of many many of us from Dec 2002- Aug 2003. Therefore the War in Iraq started after Canada was already in Afghanistan. The old making up to the US argument is tired, old, and complete BS.


----------



## armyvern (12 Feb 2006)

Tow Tripod said:
			
		

> I doubt many Canadians want the former Taliban regime back in power any time soon.


I also highly doubt that many Afghanis want to see them back in power....ever!!


----------



## George Wallace (12 Feb 2006)

Has anyone seen this article in print somewhere?

I wonder if the person who signed up to become a member of Army.ca this morning and was online long enough to post this topic and watch it long enough to see some interest, may in fact be doing so to gleam some points to print another article altogether?   ;D  Ulterior motives perhaps?  

I have sent 'valleyhills' a PM requesting the source and credits due this piece and have not gotten any results back.

I am very tempted to delete the whole post due to their lack of copyright accreditation.


----------



## armyvern (12 Feb 2006)

> Has anyone seen this article in print somewhere?... I am very tempted to delete the whole post due to their lack of copyright accreditation.



George, Valleyhills must have edited the original post because the link is there now:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1139611812882


----------



## George Wallace (12 Feb 2006)

Ah!  Caught me snoozing.  My Bad.   :-[


----------



## GO!!! (12 Feb 2006)

One more left wing columnist with no vested interest in our actions on the world stage.

I'd love to see a collaberative workby her, Steven Staples, Scott Taylor and other self styled "experts", just to see what the left actually believes.

Canada goes to Afghanistan - We are supporting Washington's quest for global domination.

Canada does not go to Afghanistan - We are wallowing in decadence and allowing the third world to self destruct.

Ever wonder why the Star is only read in TO, or why the NDP is still part of the opposition?


----------



## Glorified Ape (12 Feb 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Ever wonder why the Star is only read in TO, or why the NDP is still part of the opposition?



It's an editorial, not a news piece and thus it's supposed to be based on opinion. If anyone bothered to look at the editorial page of their website, you'd find a counter-piece by Rondi Adamson. Of course, then it might not be as easy to cast aspersions on the source or find another excuse to bash TO.


----------



## Hunter (12 Feb 2006)

valleyhills said:
			
		

> Of course, the main reason we're in Afghanistan is because the Americans want us there to support their "war on terror," and we see this as a way to make up to them for not joining their invasion of Iraq.



Does Ms McCuiag not realize that our involvement in Afghanistan pre-dates the Iraq war by a couple of years?  Pretty poor journalism, even for a lefty.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Feb 2006)

Hunter said:
			
		

> Does Ms McCuiag not realize that our involvement in Afghanistan pre-dates the Iraq war by a couple of years?  Pretty poor journalism, even for a lefty.



Doesn't know, doesn't care. She and her kind will spew out this vile crap in order to attack the political right (you know us, individual freedoms, personal responsibility, property rights, rule of law) regardless of the truth. Any advances on our side means a corresponding diminution of the "Left" (Big government, group rights, confiscation of personal wealth and property to support collectivist projects, laws being created out of thin air by unelected and unaccountable jurists as opposed to the elected legislature), and of course that can't be allowed to happen; Ms McCuiag and her kind *know* better than we do how to live our lives (remember the "beer and popcorn" remark. That was no abberation).


----------



## pbi (13 Feb 2006)

Just to add my two cents to a fairly healthy barrage of responses. I'm getting tired of hearing/reading the knee-jerk anti-US prattlings of leftist academics and journalists on the subject of the NATO/US missions in Afghanistan, particularly when they have apparently done very little useful research on which to base their conclusions. The other day, for example, I was torturing myself by listening to CIUT (UofT radio) while stuck in commuter traffic here in TO. They were playing a lecture by an academic whose interpretations of the facts of the situation was, to put it politely, "loose". He talked about the US forces in Afghanistan being a few thousand troops "hiding in Kabul", then occasionally "rushing out into the countryside in armoured vehicles". Anybody who knows anything useful about OEF knows that this is just utter garbage. But, of course, his intellectually defenceless (not to say utterly predisposed...) audience sucked it all up. With no real knowledge, how could they do anything else? I guess critical thinking in universities is only to be applied against representatives of the centre or right, not the left. And, certainly, not against anti-US ranters who appear to be sacrosanct.

Typically these people either have no grasp of recent political/military history, or see these things through an anti-US, anti-Western lens. They have (if they are Canadian) paid little or no attention to the history of our committment in Afghanistan, do not understand what it is about, and reject it  because it is seen to be helping the wicked US. I wonder what they would have said about going to Rwanda if the US had been the lead nation there?

Cheers


----------



## Pike (3 Mar 2006)

Why are we in Kandahar? Simplistically put we are in Kandahar in large measure because the previous government wanted to find a way to improve our relations with the Bush administration, and ponying up forces for a major deployment in Afghanistan was one way to show our bona fides.
http://www.breakthesilence.ca/politics/March%2006/afghanbecause.htm

Comon boys, question your elected officials


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Mar 2006)

I can't believe you came here to make a statement like that. That is what's known as a troll, and you've just given the dictionary definition. Take a hike.

The Glog and Mog is a Lieberal rag that perpetuates falsehoods and half truths to support their raison de tere of the week, and garner Lieberal grants and funds. Similar to the totally misconstrued falsehoods perpetrated by that other prominent Ottawa rag. When the Lieberals were in, the military could do no wrong, with the deployments they sent us on, lacking equipment, supplies and manpower. Now that the Conservatives are in, the Lieberals are bitching, heaping blame on the mission THEY created and started us on, trying to make the Conservatives the fall guys for the Lieberal folly. Two faced lying pieces of shit. Their own, supposed saviour, P Martin JUNIOR, didn't even have the balls to stick it out and defend his own position. I use the term JUNIOR, because I knew his Dad personally. He was the last honest, caring, constituent friendly MP, the Lieberals had.

With the way the Lieberals have treated and left the Forces, you have a lot of gall linking us to your pathetic site. 

I'm going to do you a small favour. You wanted feedback? I'll leave it open........for a bit. We know what your trying to do. To paraphrase "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth!!

Game on. Make sure you don't slip out of your Birkenstocks when you run down the hill. Us uncouth, silly army bastards will likely fill them with beer and drink out of them.


----------



## Walrus (3 Mar 2006)

CAN SOMEONE GET PIKE SOME RUBBER BOOTS PLEASE..he just stepped in a whole lot of it now.


Walrus


----------



## nULL (3 Mar 2006)

He's entitled to his opinions, just like the rest of us. 

Pike, I'm curious as to your academic qualifications. You have made quite a brash statement, but offered very little evidence to support it; if indeed you are a university student like so many of us here on army.ca, you must know that the link you provided does not qualify as a reputable reference. If you are serious about "enlightening" us, you're going to have to back it up in a far more proficient manner.


----------



## COBRA-6 (3 Mar 2006)

You're right Pike! Good on ya for waking us poor brainwashed grunts up... 

I guess countries like France, Germany, *Switzerland*, Finland, Sweeden, Norway, Denmark, The Netherlands, Belgium, Ireland and a hockey sock full of others are here trying to suck up to the Bush Administration too, because everyone knows they're all such big fans of him :

The real reason of course, is we're all here looking for oil... in between rocket attacks and suicide bombings we sneak out of our camps under the cover of darkness and drill test wells... the saunas of Finland won't heat themselves ya know!!


----------



## Nemo888 (3 Mar 2006)

Stick your head back in your water bong where it belongs.  :threat:


----------



## reccecrewman (3 Mar 2006)

Because if we aren't there to provide security while a country devastated by 30 years of war tries to rebuild itself, it is too vulnerable to be overrun with terrorist's and terrorist sympathizers in government.  Once Karzai's government is on it's feet and there's some infrastructure in place, and they can handle their own affairs, we'll be out of there.  

You have alot of balls to ask a question like that here................ Good men have died in Afghanistan to give that country a fighting chance at democracy and I won't listen to left wing pacifists say those men died in vain.  And if we pulled out before the job was finished, thats exactly what their deaths would be.  Don't worry, the good men and women in uniform will get the job done hippie, you won't be drafted.  Do us a favour - leave and never come back.


----------



## Hockeycaper (3 Mar 2006)

Pike, Pike Pike...... I could fill this page with four letter words and signs like this , ( F@#* y*# ) but I won't lower myself to that. I will simply refer you back to Reccecrewman's note above mine because it brings chills to my spine and if you have a patriotic bone in your body you will apologize to all members on this site and never never return.


----------



## Big Foot (3 Mar 2006)

You have a hell of a lot of nerve coming in here and saying what you did a day after one soldier was killed and six others were wounded and on the same day as four were wounded in a suicide attack. I barely have words for what I want to say to you and, in accordance with site guidlines, I will keep my words for myself. As has been said already, do the right thing, apologize and never return.


----------



## Redeye (3 Mar 2006)

Pike's trollish post omits the fact that there was a second op ed piece published in the G&M in support of the mission the same day, and that this article is taken out of the context of a being one of a series of articles to get the public talking about Afghanistan, something I see nothing wrong with... principally because anyone with half a brain would quickly conclude that it's the right mission.

recceguy - I think of all the papers out there, the G&M is probably the one that represents the CF best, it's generally even keeled, constructive, and doesn't print articles that needlessly scaremonger (ie the National Post's article on the 9mm).  It does a pretty good job of keeping whatever government is in power on its toes by asking questions, but seems to be fairly well balanced in all.  Their coverage of AStan I think has been good, keeping it in the forefront of people's minds and getting people to think critically.  That's responsible journalism, IMHO.


----------



## George Wallace (3 Mar 2006)

I really don't want to see Pike leave...........not just yet.  Pike has played a little game with us, and posted two 'Canned' Topics all within the space of 1.17 minutes.  She would have to be an awful fast typist to post three posts in two different forums in that quick a time.  I think she is indeed trolling, but really doesn't have the brains to defend her statements.  They are only statements that she has found somewhere else and thought would incite a bunch of 'Evil Baby-killing Army Guys'.  Let's let her have the opportunity to match wits with us and perhaps have some 'meaningful' dialogue.  I am glad to see that we so far have kept our 'workplace' vocabulary to a minimum in our responses to her.

Oh! her posts were initiated at:

The Mess / Political /      Mandatory Minimum Sentances Do not Work                            on: Today at 01:42:02 
The Mess / Political /      Danish Newspaper Editor in his own words (muslim cartoons)      on: Today at 01:43:19
and then this one;
The Parade Square /      The Canadian Army / And we are in Afghanistan because??         on: Today at 02:08:28 

Be nice to her.....it may be the first 'honest' debate she has ever had.     ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Mar 2006)

Did anyone, especially Pike, bother to read Peggy Wente's opinion piece all the way through, right to the end of the last paragraph?

Doesn't look like it.

After some background about _'tit Jean's_ motives she says almost exactly what Gen Hillier said: we're in Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda.  She adds, rightly, if the polls are correct, that a very large number of Canadians are not convinced that Hiller (and she) are right – it is going to be tough to change their minds.

Pike picked a piece which does nothing to support the proposition that we should hold the government to account.

Sheesh!


----------



## geo (3 Mar 2006)

a little pathetic..... but at least it got our blood pumpin!

And on that note, we bid Pike a fond "Adieu", tata, Bye, bye


----------



## Journeyman (3 Mar 2006)

Wow. I haven't seen so much venom unleashed so fast since the last time _Armyboi_ spoke about...well, anything.

Let's see, the full article is at http://www.breakthesilence.ca/politics/March%2006/afghanbecause.htm
The email address in Pike's profile is  info@breakthesilence.ca

Oh, so Pike is guilty of self-serving marketting, readily confirmed by the posting history highlighted by George, above.

Echoing Edward, however, I read the article to its conclusion, with the final paragraph being:

 "In other words, Afghanistan is a nasty, bloody place. It has confounded every foreign force that's dared to meddle in it. And in the end, *there is just one reason to be there. It's to wipe out al-Qaeda and the Taliban before they wipe out us. And that's one tough sell*."  
(my emphasis)

A tough sell indeed, especially with casualties mounting, and the Canadian population still preferring a "peacekeeping nation" mythology.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Mar 2006)

For the past week the _Globe and Mail_ (which, like it or not, is probably as close as we, in Canada, get to having a _national newspaper of record_) has been focusing on *our* mission in Afghanistan.  (I highlight the our because I agree with the _Globe’s_ editorial position, which follows, which is, essentially, that ‘we’ (all Canadians) need to get behind Gen. Hillier and his transformation project so that ‘our’ armed forces can protect and promote ‘our’ national interests around the world, including in Afghanistan.)  

Here is the _Globe and Mail_ editorial which (along with a very flattering article about Gen. Hillier and his plans), I suspect, is intended to cap the week which began with a provocative story/poll which told us that most Canadians neither understand nor support the CF’s Afghanistan mission.  (This editorial is reproduced here under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Ac t.)


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060303.EAFGHAN03/TPStory/Opinion/editorials  


> Hillier's compelling case for the Afghan mission
> 
> Yesterday at 2:30 a.m., General Rick Hillier was awoken by a telephone call. Corporal Paul Davis of Bridgewater, N.S., had been killed in a road accident near Kandahar. He was the 10th Canadian to die in Afghanistan since 2002. He will not be the last. The Canadian mission in lawless southern Afghanistan is the most dangerous the armed forces have undertaken since the Korean War. More casualties are inevitable.
> 
> ...



There are some (many? most?) members of Army.ca who want to pigeon-hole the _Good Grey Globe_ as a Liberal rag – maybe, but if they are then this is a time when ‘we’ (the army/military _community_) ought to get behind the views of that _Liberal rag_.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Mar 2006)

Although I am in agreement with most of your posts Edward, in this case I would say we should be getting behind the views of _General Hillier_, and assist him in getting these views out through as manny channels as possible.

For those Army.ca members who have the privilage, make sure your MP (of whatever party) is appriased of this editorial, and all members should discuss this with as many people as we have in our circles of friends and associates. "Word on the street" does have a big impact, lets use it.


----------



## Journeyman (3 Mar 2006)

Excellent.

Perhaps this should be merged with
 Army.ca Forums > The Parade Square > The Canadian Army > "And we are in Afghanistan because??"


----------



## redleafjumper (3 Mar 2006)

Perhaps a slightly more academic answer might be to read Sean Maloney's writings on the myth of peacekeeping.  There are other articles circulating that touch on why Canada goes to such places as Afghanistan.  It is an important discussion that more people need to participate in.  

One point though, Pike's question is not one that should be merely blown off; it is fair to have a measured, reasonable response to it.  My own answer to the question is simplistic, but it here it is:  

We are in Afghanistan because it is in our national interest to be there.  Our presence there supports our military and political alliances; it is tangible evidence that Canada is a participant in stopping religious and ethnic violence, and it is a commitment of our country to show that we stand against the religious fundamentalism and economic frustration that has contributed to terrorist attacks around the world.  In short, we have soldiers in Afghanistan because we need to have them there to protect our own way of life.

Thanks for being there for us, troops!


----------



## Franko (3 Mar 2006)

What a self serving piece of dreck.......Pike, how could you....oh no...

*burp....burp*

I'm not feeling so good.....



>



Leaves a bad taste in your mouth after reading it.....

Regards


----------



## vonGarvin (3 Mar 2006)

Franko said:
			
		

> What a self serving piece of dreck.......Pike, how could you....oh no...
> 
> *burp....burp*
> 
> ...


Where on EARTH did you get that graphic of the smily vomiting?  Sheesh, now I've seen it all
(and I mean this in a good way) :cheers:


----------



## Franko (3 Mar 2006)

You are not ready for that litle piece of knowledge.......



>



Regards


----------



## RangerRay (3 Mar 2006)

Pike has been known to troll conservative boards with this dreck in the past.


----------



## Scott (3 Mar 2006)

Yes, I find it funny that Pike failed to show up while the Libs were still in power : Guess them sending troops to Afghanistan was OK, right? Bye Pike.


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Mar 2006)

vonGarvin said:
			
		

> Where on EARTH did you get that graphic of the smily vomiting?  *Sheesh, now I've seen it all*
> (and I mean this in a good way) :cheers:



You have, vonGarvin?  Have you ever seen a man eat his own head?  

Ahhh!  So you haven't seen it all, then...   ;D


Uh-oh...haven't watched Team America in at least two weeks....must...get...DVD....


----------



## vonGarvin (3 Mar 2006)

Duey said:
			
		

> You have, vonGarvin?  Have you ever seen a man eat his own head?
> 
> Ahhh!  So you haven't seen it all, then...   ;D
> 
> ...


I stand corrected  :rofl:


----------



## RangerRay (3 Mar 2006)

Piper said:
			
		

> When's he coming back? I want to hear him defend his position (if he has one).
> 
> Troll.



That's not his MO.  He just posts and runs.  He doesn't stick around for civilised debate.


----------



## Gayson (3 Mar 2006)

Why would he stay for a civilized debate here?

The way some people have replied, there really isn't one to be found. . .


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (3 Mar 2006)

vonGarvin said:
			
		

> Where on EARTH did you get that graphic of the smily vomiting?  Sheesh, now I've seen it all
> (and I mean this in a good way) :cheers:



Right click the smilies, hit properties, and you'll see a Web Address for it. 

Sorry for sidetrack, back on topic.


----------



## Journeyman (3 Mar 2006)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> Pike has been known to troll conservative boards with this dreck in the past.



Such as? Do you have URL's handy? [not sarcasm, serious inquiry]


----------



## Pike (3 Mar 2006)

Well I am glad I can get a debate started here.

First off, I personally believe that Canada should decide its own foreign policy,not be subject to the American foreign policy.

Afghanistan is NOT our priority, If anyone here can explain to me how fighting in Afghanistan enhances our national security I would love to hear it.

Its important to question our elected officials and the decisions they make. I WANT our army to be heavily funded. I WANT us as a country to take up foreign missions. But comon guys lets do what make sense. Lets go into Sudan, thats where our priorities should lie, not fighting in afghanistan trying to makeup to the AMericans for saying No on Iraq.

Americans created this "war on terror" which is so undefinable its stupid. Think for yourself


----------



## Armymedic (3 Mar 2006)

Pike said:
			
		

> Why are we in Kandahar? Simplistically put we are in Kandahar in large measure because the previous government wanted to find a way to improve our relations with the Bush administration, and ponying up forces for a major deployment in Afghanistan was one way to show our bona fides.
> http://www.breakthesilence.ca/politics/March%2006/afghanbecause.htm
> 
> Comon boys, question your elected officials



Sure Pike, I'll engage you.

I question Rt Hon Stephen Harper why are we not debating why we still have troops in Afghanistan? 

His response:
"You do not send men and women into harm's way on a dangerous mission ... and then decide, once they're over there, that you're not sure you should have sent them." 

Now, that my friend, is what is called LEADERSHIP! Too bad it was lacking in the gov't prior to the Jan elections, and still lacking in the official opposition.

http://www.torsun.canoe.ca/Comment/Commentary/2006/03/03/pf-1470669.html


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (3 Mar 2006)

Can someone shake some clarity from the tree here? What exactly makes Sudan, a higher priority interest for Canada, then say, Afghanistan!?  ???


----------



## Armymedic (3 Mar 2006)

Pike said:
			
		

> First off, I personally believe that Canada should decide its own foreign policy,not be subject to the American foreign policy.
> 
> Afghanistan is NOT our priority, If anyone here can explain to me how fighting in Afghanistan enhances our national security I would love to hear it.



So exactly what part of our foreign policy was written in Washington?

If Afghanistan is not our foreign policy priority, then what is?

If by assisting in removing elements of a radical former totalitarian government who frown upon equal right and privileges of the citizens of their country, and replacing it with a friendlier democratic government which encourages equality and opportunity does not enhance our security, I would like for you to explain to me what better we could do by not being involved.


----------



## MikeL (3 Mar 2006)

Also, lets not forget that Canadians also died on 9/11 in the World Trade Center. And Canada is listed as a target for Al Qaueda, so far we've been lucky that we haven't been attacked here in Canada.


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (3 Mar 2006)

MikeL said:
			
		

> Also, lets not forget that Canadians also died on 9/11 in the World Trade Center. And Canada is listed as a target for Al Qaueda, so far we've been lucky that we haven't been attacked here in Canada.



"No terrorist will attack Canada. Why? Because this is where they send their relatives for protection!"

Your comment reminded me of that line.


----------



## Armymedic (3 Mar 2006)

Pike said:
			
		

> Lets go into Sudan, thats where our priorities should lie, not fighting in afghanistan trying to makeup to the Americans for saying No on Iraq.



Sure lets go to Sudan, all by ourselves. After all it is our own Canadian companies that are in the country making money for that government...I volunteer you to be the first to go into that totally inhospitable crap hole of a country.

We should invade Sudan, after all they unilaterally broke a peace treaty with Chad in invading that country. After all that gov't already said no to UN directed Canadian Military Observer teams going in. So Canada has done its part, equipping and training the AU soldier in Sudan. Not much more we can do but watch, unless we go to war with them.

But I am not sure how being in Sudan would enhance our national security.  Pike, I would love to hear it.

How about Haiti? Pike, how does instability dispite democratic elections affect our security here?


----------



## Cdnarmybear (3 Mar 2006)

Pike said:
			
		

> Well I am glad I can get a debate started here.
> 
> First off, I personally believe that Canada should decide its own foreign policy,not be subject to the American foreign policy.
> 
> ...



Well, Pike, here is some food for thought....Just because we haven't had anything happen here in Canada, doesn't mean it won't. 
God forbid we ever have terrorist attacks on our own soil, but if it ever does maybe it will wake people like you up to the fact that  no one is safe from the kind of threat which faces everyone in the world today.

Better yet, unless you have actually been over there (which many of the people on this site have , including myself) or have had any real life experience, you should refrain from posting things like this on a site where you should obviously know you would not be well recieved.

Save your opinions for the  peace protests where other people like you think Canada is safe and everyone in the world loves us.


----------



## Slim (3 Mar 2006)

Sometimes, just sometimes I regret having to show restraint as a mod.

Pike...

I don't even know where to start. I imagine that you came here thinking that you can just open up a canfull of crap such as you did and then overwhelm us with your superior intellect and greater understanding of world events.

Boy oh boy are you ever wrong.

We (all of us) strongly believe in the CF's current mission in A'stan. Stopping terrorism at its source.

But of course its much easier to criticise the CF and the A'stan deployment sitting in the overstuffed chairs down at Starbucks on Osborne Street, complaining to all the other pseudo-hippies about how Canada has become a puppet of the Bush administration.

Go walk the line for a while...Then complain if you want to. But until then as far as I'm concerned you haven't earned the right to stand and call out our soldiers and what they're doing...Especially given that they have suffered losses in the recent days. But, of course, that's what your kind does.

Please go away.

Slim


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Mar 2006)

Pike said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> First off, I personally believe that Canada should decide its own foreign policy,not be subject to the American foreign policy.



Absolutely correct.  Our foreign policy ought too look something like a stylized compass rose – we have interests all around the globe, North, South, East and West – we need to ‘see’ the whole word, we need to assess how _our_ interests are impacted by events near and far, then we _may_ need to take some actions, maybe even military action.  As is often the case with stylized _roses_ one cardinal point out to be bigger than all the rest, lots bigger: the one which points to America.  For Canada our relations with the USA outweigh all other considerations.



			
				Pike said:
			
		

> …
> Afghanistan is NOT our priority, If anyone here can explain to me how fighting in Afghanistan enhances our national security I would love to hear it.



If you believe that, if that it a _considered_ opinion and not just sophomoric, _Trudeauistic_ anti-capitalist crap, then there is no point in saying anything else except to send you photos of this really neat bridge I have for sale.

Afghanistan, _qua_ Afghanistan is not important, that’s true.  It is poor and weak.  Afghanistan acquires importance precisely because it is poor, weak and sits in a key geo-political location, a _cockpit_, as it has for millennia.  Afghanistan, _per se_, does not matter except that it borders and provides access to a whole hockey sock full of nations which *do* matter.

Afghanistan – who governs it and how it conducts itself - matters a lot to Turkey, Iran, Pakistan and China.  That means it also matters to a lot India, the Middle East and Central Asia and, less directly, Russia.  Afghanistan is, traditionally, politically weak so it has often been, as was just recently the case, a safe haven for those who have declared *war* on us* and who have attacked us*, to.  We need to prevent further attacks and, at the same time we need to deny the enemy (not Islam, not any nations, _per se_, but a real and avowed enemy none the less) bases there (that’s what _al qaeda_ means: “base”).  We need to do that by: helping our friends, allies and other peace-loving, trading nations to:

•	Defeat the remnants of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan; and

•	Help the Afghan people to strengthen themselves and their society so that they are less likely to be able to be sued against us.

Those are important, even vital national interests for Canada and for Australia, Germany, The Netherlands, New Zealand, the UK and, yes, the USA, too.  Those vital interests are directly tied to our national security and to our long term peace and prosperity and they require  Canadian soldiers to fight in Afghanistan.  Now I understand that the _Trudeauites_ and the Pink Lloyd Axworthy wing of the Liberal Party disagree.  Since, in my opinion, Trudeau was and Axworthy is a second rate intellectual with very weak foreign policy ideas I will happily ignore their views – they are also sophomoric.  



			
				Pike said:
			
		

> ...
> Its important to question our elected officials and the decisions they make. I WANT our army to be heavily funded. I WANT us as a country to take up foreign missions. But comon guys lets do what make sense. Lets go into Sudan, thats where our priorities should lie, not fighting in afghanistan trying to makeup to the AMericans for saying No on Iraq.



No real disagreements; you are right, I think, that the reason Jean Chrétien sent troops to Afghanistan was base and cowardly – but he ended up doing the right thing for the wrong reason.  It is still the _*right thing*_.



			
				Pike said:
			
		

> ...
> Americans created this "war on terror" which is so undefinable its stupid. Think for yourself



Ho-hum, see above re: _”sophomoric, Trudeauistic anti-capitalist crap”_.
----------
* Us being the secular, liberal-democratic West.

Edit: typo


----------



## Pikache (3 Mar 2006)

Gents, (and ladies)

Don't feed the trolls.

People like Pike aren't looking for genuine debates, but merely being shit disturbers.

More you respond to him, more his amusement grows.


----------



## Slim (3 Mar 2006)

HighlandFusilier said:
			
		

> Gents, (and ladies)
> 
> Don't feed the trolls.
> 
> ...



In this one case I disagree.

People like this need to be responded to. Forcefully, respectably and properly with good facts...But they need to hear that they *CANNOT* spew garbage like that and get off doing it. Not here and not to our soldiers.

We must be able to show that not only are we better than the yahoos who would take away our right and ability to defend ourselves but that we know and believe in what we are doing!

I am not speaking a s a mod but as my own opinion, however I hope that others here will agree.


----------



## HDE (3 Mar 2006)

I'm always amused when the "we're only there to kiss up to the U.S." line is used.  Various of our NATO allies have also determined that Afghanistan actually is a worthy undertaking and so it seems that we've all been suckered  :  

In the event we are "only there to fight the Taliban and Al Qaeda" that seems a pretty worthy goal in itself; freeing Afghan women from the savagery of the Taliban seems a pretty nice bonus.


----------



## George Wallace (3 Mar 2006)

Well Mame

It is in our National interests to be in Afghanistan.  It is stopping Terrorism in its' tracks before it has a chance to spread like a plaque around the world and lands up on your and my doorsteps.  It is a form of 'preventative medicine' done with the conscent of all nations involved.

As for Sudan.  It will soon be a Hell hole and may even be a worse situation than Afghanistan.  The Sudanese Government does not yet want foreigners in their country, let alone interfering in their 'war' at this time.  I guess you may have missed that fact in your quick comment on that problem.  We don't have permission or request for assistance from the Sudanese, but we do from the Afghani's.


----------



## Pike (3 Mar 2006)

Well thanks everyone for enlighening me. Seriously I have learned a lot from listening to all of you. And no Im not just sitting here laughing.

I agree with some of your points, I think you said it best Edward Campbell why we need to be in Afghanistan.

What if we turn around the argument though? And what if we say it is in our interest and our allies to get rid of dictatorships in Africa, to liberate those people, foster trade etc etc. Its the same argument. Poverty breeds inequality and restrained choice, which is what is happening in Afghanistan and Sudan.

I guess my overall point is this. We can justify being in Afghanistan as much as we want. But it is not our foreign policy. We were swayed into doing it to maintain good relations with the USA. Thats it. So I just have a problem with people defending this like its our own. Its not. We will always be dictated to. And as long as individuals within our army accept that it will never change. We will never truly have our own foreign policy.


----------



## Slim (3 Mar 2006)

> We were swayed into doing it to maintain good relations with the USA.



Thanks for listening.


----------



## elminister (3 Mar 2006)

Pike, I shed a tear for you. You naive, selfish, crap disturber. 
        You have entered the forbidden forest, you have caused both great and small; young and old to come alive. That is a bitter sweet thing you have done. You will be taught with experience and facts, and not only that you will be scolded with hot fire, such as that which flows from the core of the earth.
       You will learn.


----------



## Lost_Warrior (3 Mar 2006)

I'm still at awe that you guys are still talking with him/her.   I read the first post and that was it.....next....


----------



## Journeyman (3 Mar 2006)

Pike said:
			
		

> We will always be dictated to. And as long as individuals within our army accept that it will never change. We will never truly have our own foreign policy.



Are you then suggesting that the CF, or perhaps merely "individuals within our army," *not* accept the government's policy?


----------



## George Wallace (3 Mar 2006)

Pike said:
			
		

> ........ We will always be dictated to. And as long as individuals within our army accept that it will never change. We will never truly have our own foreign policy.



Unfortunately, you have made a fatal error in that statement.  In the words of Kipling, "It is not our reason to wonder why, it is our duty to do or die."  A little melodramatic, I know, but what you are espousing in your statement amounts to "Muntiny".  That is a serious crime.  One for which none of us wishes to commit.  It is the job of politicians and Statesmen to make these types of decisions.  It is up to the soldiers to clean up their mess.   ;D


----------



## George Wallace (3 Mar 2006)

Lost_Warrior said:
			
		

> I'm still at awe that you guys are still talking with him/her.   I read the first post and that was it.....next....


Ah! You are just as enamoured with her silly questions as the rest of us jokers.   ;D


----------



## TCBF (3 Mar 2006)

"Gents, (and ladies)Don't feed the trolls.People like Pike aren't looking for genuine debates, but merely being crap disturbers.More you respond to him, more his amusement grows."

- I would say the amusement is mutual!  

"Poverty breeds inequality and restrained choice, which is what is happening in Afghanistan and Sudan."

- Other way a 'round, Ma'am: inequality and restrained choice breed poverty.  Cuba, etc, is not Communist because it is poor, it is poor because it is Communist.

(Brilliant of me, what?).

 :-*

Tom


----------



## Pearson (3 Mar 2006)

Googled Pikes web site.

Google results.
Break the Silence.....This site provides information on sexual assault, rape, healing, myths and facts, effects of sexual violence, statistics, and more.
breakthesilence.ca/ 

Funny thing though. Found this little comment, wondered if Ruxted Group was interested.

http://breakthesilence.ca/about.htm

"Want to write for Break The Silence? 

Opinion articles are welcome on all topics political, scientific and cultural. Keep articles maximum to 1000 words. Submit for reviewing to articles@breakthesilence.ca 

This is a great opportunity to get your work recognized by a wide variety of readers. All submissions are voluntary and will not be reimbursed financially. "


----------



## Franko (3 Mar 2006)

I am in awe Tom.....

Time to button up methinks.....



>


----------



## Journeyman (3 Mar 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> (Brilliant of me, what?).



You'd think more philosphers would come out of Wainwright.......or articles on suicide and depression


----------



## Jungle (3 Mar 2006)

Pike, you have no idea about the relationship between the govt and the Military in a democracy like Canada. The Armed Forces obey orders from the govt; they do not dictate anything to the govt, or refuse to carry out an order.
Most people in uniform in the CF are outstanding Canadians, and we are losing some of them at this time as they are preventing a failed state's return to a dictatorship that supports and trains international terrorists, and funds terrorist organizations through the heroin market.
It's a simple concept: we fight them over there instead of over here.

"You live under the blanket of freedom in which I provide, and then question the way in which I provide it. I would rather you say thank you, and went on your way.  Otherwise I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post".
Jack Nicholson, A few good men


----------



## reccecrewman (4 Mar 2006)

So what would you have us do Pike? Pick some Country at random and mount a full scale invasion of our own without any support or approval from our allies?  And to what end? Just to say we went somewhere on our own accord by our own terms to show that we have a foreign policy?  There are 28 Nations who seem to believe that Afghanistan is worth the manpower and resources to give that Country assistance.  On my Roto, there were numerous troops there with me that were there on the first roto in there, and they said the difference there from just a year prior that they were last there, was immense.  We are achieving success over there.  You also have no idea obviously on our Military resources.  We simply don't have the numbers to pick and choose places we want to go "make a difference" and go off and do it.  We have one Division (An understrength Division at that) which more or less means all we can really do is pick our commitments carefully, and go with the worthy cause. Afghanistan has appealed to the Western powers for assistance, we were invited in. (Afghanistan has proved time and again if they don't want you in their Country, trust me, you won't be there) 

Regards


----------



## zipperhead_cop (4 Mar 2006)

Just a snippet from Pipers posted link from the Foreign policy site:

*Roles of the Canadian Forces 

Failed states and the challenge of restoring stability 

The Canadian Forces will continue to participate across the spectrum of international operations, with a focus on the complex and dangerous task of restoring order to failed and failing states. The ability of our military to carry out three-block war operations will be critical to the success of Canada's efforts to address the problems of these states. Our experience in the past has shown that democracy and economic development cannot take hold in these societies without the security and stability that only military forces can provide.  * 
Seem pretty much like what is going on in A'stan?

When I think of Pike I remember Captain Pike from the original Star Trek series.  Remeber him?  He was a drooling mangled wreck that could only make lights blink "yes" or "no".  Coincidence???  I think not!

I think Pike is just trying to ramp up the webcounter stats for the site so she can get a free pair of hemp sandals.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Mar 2006)

Pike seems not to understand the idea of "synergy", perhaps being too young or inexperienced to own mutual funds (which is a wonderful example post RRSP season).

You could attempt individual efforts, buying and selling stocks with your own resources. If you apply ALL your time and effort to this (like day traders do), there is the possibility you might make some money. The more likely outcome is you will be overwhelmed by the larger actors, pension funds and brokerage firms who have far larger resources than you do. Mutual fund investors, like me, are pooling our funds so our efforts are all being synchronized and in effect we are as big as the "big guys" in the stock market.

Joining forces with the big guys works just as well in politics and diplomacy as it does in the market. As a libertarian, I am not 100% behind the policies Prime Minister Harper offered as his election platform, but there was a close enough match on enough points that I feel are important that I synchronized my efforts with the Conservative party and voted for them. As a result, they won and some of my goals*will* be met.

An interesting historical parallel exists. In the 1800's the British Empire outlawed slavery, and the Royal Navy hunted down slavers with ruthless efficiency. The United States joined the effort as a junior partner (the US Navy being a rather ramshackle outfit in those days, and the Republic was only a "middle power"), which was welcomed by the RN. The American Navy was treated as an important partner in partolling the Carribean and West African coast, but there was nothing to prevent the American ships from leaving to persue American interests, similarly the British squadrons could be called away to perform some other duty, leaving the American ship on station to do the job alone.

In all these examples (investing, voting and fighting slavery), there was no coercion by the Greater power, simply a convergence of interests and the joining of forces to achieve a common goal.

We could go into Sudan unilaterally, but this would dissapate our efforts in Afghanistan, weaken our partners efforts there (or is that the idea?), and have only a very limited effect in the Sudan itself. Although the genocide is a terrible event, it has no immediate effect on Canada's national interest, *so we must conserve our blood and treasure* for things which are in our national interest.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Mar 2006)

Pike said:
			
		

> ….
> What if we turn around the argument though? And what if we say it is in our interest and our allies to get rid of dictatorships in Africa, to liberate those people, foster trade etc etc. Its the same argument. Poverty breeds inequality and restrained choice, which is what is happening in Afghanistan and Sudan.



Africa is not now, never has been and, likely (my opinion, free of charge, take it for what it’s worth) never will be a geo-political _cockpit_.  Africa is a tragedy; it’s going to get worse; probably much worse.  ‘We’ the big, capitalistic, secular, liberal-democratic West will do some heavy duty hand-wringing but precious little else because our vital interests are not at stake.  Dead black people, in Africa, even millions of dead black people, in Africa, are ‘old news,’ pitiful as they may be.

The _choice_ made by the very real, avowed, active enemies of the West was not fed by poverty.  Poverty, such as we see in Africa, provokes migration and, often, civil or regional wars – not, in Africa’s case, threats to our vital interests.  Our enemy, a real enemy, has all manner of grievances, some may be something other than imagined, poverty isn’t one of them. 



			
				Pike said:
			
		

> ….
> I guess my overall point is this. We can justify being in Afghanistan as much as we want. But it is not our foreign policy. We were swayed into doing it to maintain good relations with the USA. Thats it. So I just have a problem with people defending this like its our own. Its not. We will always be dictated to. And as long as individuals within our army accept that it will never change. We will never truly have our own foreign policy.



I repeat: for Canada, relative to our vital interests, the USA matters.  It matters most. Nebraska matters more, infinitely more than Niger and Nigeria and all the rest of Africa, combined.  When, as now, the USA makes security and the defeat of terrorist safe havens its number one priority then it is nothing more than Trudeauistic stupidity to ignore them – and Trudeauistic stupidity, à la the 197069 _Foreign Policy for Canadians_ is the worst, most destructive kind.  It is precisely that sort of stupidity (that now infamous document tried to propose a Canadian foreign policy which ignored the USA) which created the problems our national _strategic_ thinkers are trying to solve.  Trudeau was an ass, a dumb-ass, to boot, a petty, puffed up, provincial poltroon and the worst, by far, _leader_ in Canadian history.

*Appeasing* the USA, for whatever reason and in whatever form, IS ‘our’ – made in Canada – foreign policy.  That’s the primary option that dimwit Trudeau left behind; he was a monumentally stupid little man; he scrapped the only sensible Canadian foreign policy (St Laurent’s) and the law of unintended consequences took over from there.  Chrétien, as an independent Canadian leader, had the same choice Canadian leaders have had since 1969: appease and jump through America’s hoops or think and craft a new Canadian foreign policy.  They know what the latter entails but because the people of Canada are lovingly wedded to the Trudeauistic stupidity they, Mulroney, Chrétien, Martin, maybe Harper, too, are afraid to admit that Louis St Laurent was right and Trudeau was an idiot.

Edit: corrected date of publication of _Foreign Policy for Canadians_ - it was written in '69, published in '70


----------



## Journeyman (4 Mar 2006)

Pike said:
			
		

> Lets go into Sudan, thats where our priorities should lie



What estimate process/factors did you use to determine that Sudanese stability is a priority for Canada?

How do you address the sovereignty issue (ie - the Sudanese government does not want us there)?

What benefits do you see in revoking our agreement to let the African Union take the lead on operations in Sudan? We've provided 105 Grizzly/Husky vehicles, plus 80 troops to support the staging area (training in Ops & Maint). You believe we should now go in, guns' blazing? To what end? 

***********
On a separate, but related matter, this thread has shown that we (CF pers and CF supporters) are going to be increasingly called upon to explain deployment issues. The Opposition Parties and media are currently raising emotions on debating deployments, rationales, "can't we just be peacekeepers in Cyprus," etc. Even though all but one contributor to this thread apparently understands that the military enacts government policy, not establishes it, people will still turn to us to help them make sense of it all.

To this end, I think we need to better explain what's going on. While I have occasionally resorted to "Airborne Debating Society" technique (Well, "f - - k" you. Oh ya, well "F - - K" YOU! ), we need to express ourselves better....even to the trolls. It's at times like this, when the military is at war but our nation is apparently not, that we need to shore up support by explaining our side of the equation.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (4 Mar 2006)

Journeyman-

Excellent post.  Well said.


----------



## pbi (4 Mar 2006)

Journeyman: I second your comments and your advice on how to deal with people like Pike. As well, you are quite right about the need for each of us to conduct our own "info op" with fellow Canadians. There are lots of them who question or oppose us being in Afghanistan: this is natural in a democratic country and we should not wish for a mindlessly obedient public. I personally still believe that all Canadian govts need to do a better job of ensuring that when we go to dangerous places, we do it with the support of Canadian people, both in and out of office. Political debate and discourse is a natural part of that process: we should not fear it.

People who argue against our involvement from genuinely and deeply held personal convictions will probably not be swayed by us: so be it. But, where these opinions are based in sheer ignorance, or gut-level anti-Americanism, or defective reasoning processes (all of which seem to characterize the rantings of the "lace-curtain pacifists" or "Starbucks Socialists") then I think we need to get out there and engage, with truth, reasoned argument and logic.

Pike's now well-picked over statement:



> I guess my overall point is this. We can justify being in Afghanistan as much as we want. But it is not our foreign policy. We were swayed into doing it to maintain good relations with the USA. Thats it. So I just have a problem with people defending this like its our own. Its not. We will always be dictated to. And as long as individuals within our army accept that it will never change. We will never truly have our own foreign policy.



...displays all three of the weaknesses I described. Arguments such as Pike's are usually vulnerable to fact and reason, especially when these tools are wielded by people with op experience in Afgh or some useful knowledge of the world.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Mar 2006)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> For the past week the _Globe and Mail_ (which, like it or not, is probably as close as we, in Canada, get to having a _national newspaper of record_) has been focusing on *our* mission in Afghanistan.  (I highlight the our because I agree with the _Globe’s_ editorial position, which follows, which is, essentially, that ‘we’ (all Canadians) need to get behind Gen. Hillier and his transformation project so that ‘our’ armed forces can protect and promote ‘our’ national interests around the world, including in Afghanistan.)
> 
> Here is the _Globe and Mail_ editorial which (along with a very flattering article about Gen. Hillier and his plans), I suspect, is intended to cap the week which began with a provocative story/poll which told us that most Canadians neither understand nor support the CF’s Afghanistan mission.  (This editorial is reproduced here under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Ac t.)
> 
> ...



Here is a letter to the editor in today’s _Globe and Mail_

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060304.LETTERS04-1/TPStory


> [size-15pt] The Kandahar question[/size]
> 
> *W. S. CARNEY*
> 
> ...


_Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act_

Margaret Wente is right (see here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/40500/post-344542.html#msg344542  and here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/40463.0.html on Army.ca) it is a tough sell.


----------



## parkie (4 Mar 2006)

Pike said:
			
		

> Why are we in Kandahar? Simplistically put we are in Kandahar in large measure because the previous government wanted to find a way to improve our relations with the Bush administration, and ponying up forces for a major deployment in Afghanistan was one way to show our bona fides.
> http://www.breakthesilence.ca/politics/March%2006/afghanbecause.htm
> 
> Comon boys, question your elected officials



Hmmmmm! you come to a forum that supports the ideals of free speech and ask that question? don't you think, ooops!  I think you answered your own question.


----------



## fleeingjam (4 Mar 2006)

Man this thread hurts more than when a pike bites your finger  ;D gone fishing 

- TBCF said it the best, lets can it.


----------



## Cannonfodder (4 Mar 2006)

We should be careful in trying to decide for others what they want , yes we are in Afghanistan at the local governments  wishes . However it is a western friendly government that is in power because of Western backing . True the mission will help the people but is not  going to stop terrorism . Unfortunately any efforts to stop terrorism by being in Afghanistan should be viewed as closing the stable door after the horses have gotten out . That is not to demean the efforts of our forces , there doing a good job but the illusion of a war on terror is a misrepresentation of the facts .


----------



## Slim (4 Mar 2006)

Cannonfodder said:
			
		

> We should be careful in trying to decide for others what they want , yes we are in Afghanistan at the local governments  wishes . However it is a western friendly government that is in power because of Western backing . True the mission will help the people but is not  going to stop terrorism . Unfortunately any efforts to stop terrorism by being in Afghanistan should be viewed as closing the stable door after the horses have gotten out . That is not to demean the efforts of our forces , there doing a good job but the illusion of a war on terror is a misrepresentation of the facts .



Well thanks very much mr I-have-69posts-and-want-to-hear-myself-talk...You have never  been there, don't really know what you're talking about and are way out of your lane!

How do i know this?! Becuase if you HAD BEEN THERE  you wouldn't say what you just did...You have NO IDEA what the people of A'stan really want, which is peace and stability...The medievil regime was only attractive to those very few who benfitted from it...Not the rest of the population.

that's about as nice as you're going to get...I garuntee that more grief is on the way for you as the A'stan vets read your incredibly stupid and ignorant post!

Not only that but its an insult to those who have fought and died or been hurt defending that nation against terrorists.

Thanks Jackass...You can be quiet now!


----------



## Franko (4 Mar 2006)

I am SO biting my tongue right now.........







Slim....thanks for being so calm....

Regards


----------



## Cannonfodder (4 Mar 2006)

Sometimes the truth hurts , try to think in grays not the conventional black and white .


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Mar 2006)

Cannonfodder said:
			
		

> Sometimes the truth hurts , try to think in grays not the conventional black and white .



Truth is, you don't know what your talking about, no matter what the colour is.


----------



## Slim (4 Mar 2006)

Cannonfodder said:
			
		

> Sometimes the truth hurts , try to think in grays not the conventional black and white .



Not everything is about oil and the Evil World Alliance! Grow up!


----------



## Cannonfodder (4 Mar 2006)

Please tell me what is not true on about what I said . Dismissing someones opinion because it differs from yours is myoptic ,surely you can elaborate more intelligently.


----------



## Slim (4 Mar 2006)

Cannonfodder said:
			
		

> We should be careful in trying to decide for others what they want , yes we are in Afghanistan at the local governments  wishes . However it is a western friendly government that is in power because of Western backing .




Its not just the local govt that wants us there but the people as well.



> True the mission will help the people but is not  going to stop terrorism .



How do you know...Are you a counter-terrorism expert?!



> Unfortunately any efforts to stop terrorism by being in Afghanistan should be viewed as closing the stable door after the horses have gotten out . That is not to demean the efforts of our forces , there doing a good job but the illusion of a war on terror is a misrepresentation of the facts .



How is it a mis-representation of the facts? What are your sources? How long have you been there to analyze the situation? What do you know about this that the rest of us don't?!

Or are you shooting off your mouth on a subject that you really have no first hand knowledge of...I think that's against the site rules is it not?

You are headed down quick. Stop while you're ahead.


----------



## Franko (4 Mar 2006)

As someone who has been there and seen it for himself .....I'm safe to say that you are talking out your arse.

Your point of view has the smell of the same retoric as other left wingers who have posted here on the same topic....and is restrained from thinking that it may be wrong.

I have talked to locals all over the coutry in Afghanistan and they pretty much say the same thing over and over....they want peace and stability, earn a living and live well.

We have been invited and welcomed into their backyards to get rid of scum that obviously you have no idea of what it's like to live under....so save the tripe fro someone else.

Keep the trolling up and see where it gets you.

Regards


----------



## Gayson (4 Mar 2006)

I have to kinda agree with Cannon Fodder on this one.

Afghanistan IS a worthy cause, but our mission there will not prevent terrorism from happening.

Terrorism is a global problem rooted in countries around the world.  Though much of Al-Qaeda was and may still be in Afghanistan, killing them off in Afghanistan will not remove cells, and their recruiting, in other countries.

Obviously if our mission succeeds, Al-Qaeda will lose a major advantage and staging area they once had, but we have to remember, Terrorism thrives in many environments and it would not surprise me if Al-Qaeda simply further expanded its network to make up for the lack of one large space.

After all, the Terrorists who bombed London this past summer probably didn't fly directly in from Afghanistan to do their deed.

Afghanistan is but one small piece of the large terrorism jigsaw puzzle.

I believe Canada needs to do more at home and abroad.

Tougher immigration and border security comes to mind.  Also I believe immigrants must not be allowed to move where they want, but be assigned a geographic location where they may live, this prevents cultural ghettos from forming (and thus terrorism recruitment pools) and allows Canada to send people to areas that need them.

Also, Canada needs to start placing propaganda adds in our nation that support the mission in Kandahar.  This will yield two things, more support for us and Canada and less support for the Taliban, Al-Qaeda and Islamic extremism in general.


----------



## Cannonfodder (4 Mar 2006)

True our military is doing a good job stabilising and making Afghanistan a better place but this is not preventing terrorist attacks on Canadian soil . As for you Slim there is an old saying old it goes like never argue with an idiot , they will drag you down to there level and then beat you with expieriance .


----------



## Gayson (4 Mar 2006)

Cannonfodder said:
			
		

> True our military is doing a good job stabilising and making Afghanistan a better place but this is not preventing terrorist attacks on Canadian soil .



And this is what I agree with.

Afghanistan is merely one of the many (albiet a very large one) paths that needs to be taken.  It is not the sole solution to Terrorism.


----------



## Cannonfodder (4 Mar 2006)

Somalia , Sudan ,Algeria, Nigeria ; all fairly lawless states with radical islamic elements . If one wanted to snuff out potential terrorist staging grounds would not these be a good place to start ?. Keep up the good work in Astan but stability has removed it from the terrorist top 10 training grounds .


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (4 Mar 2006)

Cannonfodder and J Gayson,
Methinks that you are being short-sighted in saying that it is not a fight on terror. 
You may be partly correct in your assumption that it won't stop them from recruiting more scumbags, however, just like you and I, most people just want a chance at a real life, and if we can show the rest of the possible recruiting area's that we [ the west] can bring peace and economic stability to a region, well maybe they will think there is hope and therefore.......


----------



## Slim (4 Mar 2006)

> As for you Slim there is an old saying old it goes like never argue with an idiot , they will drag you down to there level and then beat you with expieriance .



In looking at your profile I see that you have no military expeience what-so-ever. I have 15 years, 5 of which were spent in the Intelligence Branch. Are you a university kid from Calgary who comes to sites like this to tell us all how it should be...?

I really want to know where your expertise and expeience in these types of situations come from. So, instead of calling the staff an idiot, why don't you tell us how it is that you know so very much about a country that you've never even been to...

If you do not, then I will ask another mod to come and look this situation over and deal with you in they way that we deal with people who knowingly post false information on the site. Which it apears to me that you have done.

Ball's in your court...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Mar 2006)

And every one we kill there is one less we have to kill here. To bad the ungrateful bastards in this country don't understand that.

If I only had as many people here in Canada say thank you, as I did Afgans say it, it would be a good day. Truth is, they want and need us there, and are thankful for our presence. I have little to account for to people here that rant and rave, supposedly, on my unsolicited behalf, then they go back to their half million dollar home to eat Swiss Chalet in front of their big screen plasma tv.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Mar 2006)

Cannonfodder said:
			
		

> Keep up the good work in Astan but stability has removed it from the terrorist top 10 training grounds .



Talking out of your ass again. It is still a training ground. It's one of the places they go for their confirmation exercises isn't it?


----------



## Cannonfodder (4 Mar 2006)

Obviously a one way range is developing here , grow up slim your really showing your true colors , childish snipes and then handing out verbal warnings is fairly immature . Iam all for a good debate but obviously your not up to playing by the rules so have a good day .


----------



## Scott (4 Mar 2006)

It shan't be long for you, dear boy. :


----------



## Slim (4 Mar 2006)

Cannonfodder said:
			
		

> Obviously a one way range is developing here , grow up slim your really showing your true colors , childish snipes and then handing out verbal warnings is fairly immature . Iam all for a good debate but obviously your not up to playing by the rules so have a good day .



I'm asking questions that you are not answering and I'm wondering why...?

And as for the verbal...It didn't come from me...


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (4 Mar 2006)

Verbal came from me as your conduct has violated the guidelines. I suggest a review of those said guidelines might be in order before you advance any further up the warning ladder.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Mar 2006)

Cannonfodder said:
			
		

> Obviously a one way range is developing here , grow up slim your really showing your true colors , childish snipes and then handing out verbal warnings is fairly immature . Iam all for a good debate but obviously your not up to playing by the rules so have a good day .



It's your own breaking of the guidelines, your own childish snipes, that got you a Verbal, and Slim didn't give it to you.  And your not debating. Your tossing out unsubstantiated bullshit, and not backing it up.

One way range? I guess it would be when your trying to counter our fact and personal experiences with your fantasy and theories. How could it evolve otherwise?


----------



## Cannonfodder (4 Mar 2006)

Slim said:
			
		

> Thanks Jackass...You can be quiet now!


----------



## Cannonfodder (4 Mar 2006)

KIND OF LIKE A DOUBLE STANDARD???


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Mar 2006)

So I guess your more concerned about your personal stature rather than your utopian morale one.

If you have a problem with the Mods, solicit the owner, Mr Bobbitt. Your taking the thread off track.......another violation.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (4 Mar 2006)

Cannonfodder said:
			
		

> KIND OF LIKE A DOUBLE STANDARD???



I remember the two way ranges back in the 80's and they weren't very popular.  I always lined up opposite the medics, since they were never really good shots, and they had the equipment needed if they got tagged. ;D

Dude, how many taskings do you think we should take on at any given time?  You don't go flail off to another campain until the first one is sewn up.  Take it from the guys who have been there (not refering to myself).  A'stan is not over.  The terrorists have learned that if you just run into the hills and screw off for a few months/years, the "Christian infidel crusaders" will go away.  We aren't doing that this time, because now that the Afgans are starting to enjoy some standard of living, it would be cruel in the extreme to say "Okay, just holder 'er steady and she'll do fine", then screw off to Sudan or some other jug hump.  
Maybe the rest of the "civilized" world can step up and take some initiative.  Maybe the newly formed 1st Tibetan Expeditionary Force could take over and spread some peace.   ;D


----------



## Slim (4 Mar 2006)

> grow up slim your really showing your true colors , childish snipes and then handing out verbal warnings is fairly immature .





> As for you Slim there is an old saying old it goes like never argue with an idiot , they will drag you down to there level and then beat you with experience .



Do you know why you're in trouble right now? I thought not.

Its because you (pay close attention now):

-Do not have first hand expedience in A'stan, yet claim to be an expert on the subject.

-Do not answer questions that myself and other have put to you about where your 'expertise' comes from.

-Cannot tolerate or accept the corrections of people who have been in that country, gone out on the patrols and spoken to the population directly

-Call people names and 'wash you hands off' when confronted with your earlier mis-behaviour.

I did tell you to can it and call you a jackass...Because that's exactly what you're acting like. You are in a debate with people who have been there and done that for real...Not TV or the movies or a good book that your prof gave you to read. These people have gone out and experienced life over there first hand. They've heard the bullets go by and know what they're fighting for.

Meanwhile you sit around in Second Cup on Tenth Ave wailing to your pals about the evil injustice of the Bush administration and how fighting terrorism should really be done. But you don't know the first thing about it! There are people on this board who do (believe me) and they laugh when they read the tripe you and others like you post. If we want to keep their respect and keep them coming back them we remove the garbage and warn the posters of the garbage not to do it again. If we didn't we would be no better than some of the other sites out there who just let anyone post whatever they like and, subsequently, have a poor rep with the REAL soldiers.

BTW this site is fairly tame in comparison to some others where you would've been run out the door by now...

Why not take the opportunity to sit back and learn from those who have heard the rounds go by and count yourself lucky that you have that opportunity?

The only thing I still don't understand is why you don't get that...?


----------



## Michael OLeary (4 Mar 2006)

Cannonfodder,

This thread had 66 responses discussing the point before you entered with this:



			
				Cannonfodder said:
			
		

> We should be careful in trying to decide for others what they want , yes we are in Afghanistan at the local governments  wishes . However it is a western friendly government that is in power because of Western backing . True the mission will help the people but is not  going to stop terrorism . Unfortunately any efforts to stop terrorism by being in Afghanistan should be viewed as closing the stable door after the horses have gotten out . That is not to demean the efforts of our forces , there doing a good job but the illusion of a war on terror is a misrepresentation of the facts .



Then for the next few dozen posts, you've been espousing empty rhetoric:



			
				Cannonfodder said:
			
		

> Sometimes the truth hurts , try to think in grays not the conventional black and white .



Sniping at other members:



			
				Cannonfodder said:
			
		

> Please tell me what is not true on about what I said . Dismissing someones opinion because it differs from yours is myoptic ,surely you can elaborate more intelligently.



Offering personal insults:



			
				Cannonfodder said:
			
		

> As for you Slim there is an old saying old it goes like never argue with an idiot , they will drag you down to there level and then beat you with expieriance .



And accusing staff of executing personal vedattas against you:



			
				Cannonfodder said:
			
		

> Obviously a one way range is developing here , grow up slim your really showing your true colors , childish snipes and then handing out verbal warnings is fairly immature . Iam all for a good debate but obviously your not up to playing by the rules so have a good day .



And yet, you have yet to return this thread to the original topic and clearly lay out your proposal for a better plan to counter terrorism.

We do await your educated and supportable solution, for you apparently claim knowledge and understanding that far surpasses the personal experiences of those service members who have served in Afghanistan.

So please, trade up to a more mature approach and get the thread back on track, because so far you've only managed to present yourself as a troll in this thread.

Thank you.

Mike


----------



## Cannonfodder (4 Mar 2006)

Actually if you read my profile you will see that I can speak with a level of expieriance .


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Mar 2006)

Cannonfodder said:
			
		

> Actually if you read my profile you will see that I can speak with a level of expieriance .



Did I miss something? I thought your profile was empty half an hour ago. Maybe I'm mistaken. Oh well, in that case, I am even more disappointed in your views. But that's just me.

It was emptry when I sent the Warning PM.


----------



## Michael OLeary (4 Mar 2006)

Cannonfodder said:
			
		

> Actually if you read my profile you will see that I can speak with a level of expieriance .



So, just to clarify, is that supposed to justify your actions thus far .... or the case against being in Afghanistan you have yet to present?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (4 Mar 2006)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Did I miss something? I thought your profile was empty half an hour ago. Maybe I'm mistaken. Oh well, in that case, I am even more disappointed in your views. But that's just me.
> 
> It was emptry when I sent the Warning PM.



It was empty when I sent the warning pm. Sorry recceguy hit Modify post vice quote initially.


----------



## Slim (4 Mar 2006)

If that indeed who you really are then I would say that you have even less excuse to be speaking the way that you are...

If you were a 1 VP soldier and are running down the guys on the ground after your former mates were hurt and killed this week that's deplorable!


----------



## Mark Antony (4 Mar 2006)

Wow,

I don't agree with cannonfodder's original comment but the cause of this sniping has been simply because you called him a jackass Slim rather than discuss a diametrically opposing view.  It doesn't matter that he (or I) haven't been there.  You name called first and he ended up with a verbal warning.

I'm surely a nobody but this thread was started by Pike for the sole purpose of creating conflict and he's done it.  I recommend everyone shake hands and the thread be locked by the Mods.


----------



## Franko (4 Mar 2006)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Did I miss something? I thought your profile was empty half an hour ago. Maybe I'm mistaken. Oh well, in that case, I am even more disappointed in your views. But that's just me.
> 
> It was emptry when I sent the Warning PM.



I though I was going crazy for a while....checked it out earlier this am....and it was blank.

Regards


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Mar 2006)

Mark Antony said:
			
		

> Wow,
> 
> I don't agree with cannonfodder's original comment but the cause of this sniping has been simply because you called him a jackass Slim rather than discuss a diametrically opposing view.  It doesn't matter that he (or I) haven't been there.  You name called first and he ended up with a verbal warning.
> 
> I'm surely a nobody but this thread was started by Pike for the sole purpose of creating conflict and he's done it.  I recommend everyone shake hands and the thread be locked by the Mods.



Don't try second guess. That's not why he got the verbal. It's also not the reason that all this is going on.

Now, add to the original intent of the thread or leave it alone. Got a problem. Report it.


----------



## Slim (4 Mar 2006)

Mark Antony said:
			
		

> Wow,
> 
> I don't agree with cannonfodder's original comment but the cause of this sniping has been simply because you called him a jackass Slim rather than discuss a diametrically opposing view.  It doesn't matter that he (or I) haven't been there.  You name called first and he ended up with a verbal warning.



You know its been pretty well laid out why I called him a jackass (which I hold to stronger than ever) and why he's taking the flack and the verbal (not from me as I'm involved in the debate).

He does not know what he is talking about...That's where the grief is coming from. If you have issues with the post then use the report post button like you're supposed to and any outstanding issues will be looked at and dealt with by mods who are not involved in the thread.


----------



## Cannonfodder (4 Mar 2006)

This is pointless , you have your opinion and I have mine , agree on something we will not .


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (4 Mar 2006)

Mr. O'Leary has gone to great lengths to ask you to post reasons for your opinions.....and you haven't, so why post rhetoric if you wont back it up?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Mar 2006)

Only pointless because your argument is indefensible. However, so be it. Your last statement let's you bow out gracefully. BuBye 

Everyone, let's put this to bed and carry on with the original intent of the thread.


----------



## Bert (4 Mar 2006)

J. Gayson said:
			
		

> I have to kinda agree with Cannon Fodder on this one.
> 
> Afghanistan IS a worthy cause, but our mission there will not prevent terrorism from happening.
> 
> ...



From my reading, your points are:
1.  Canadian involvement in Afghanistan will not prevent terrorism from happening;
2.  Terrorism is routed in many areas;
3.  Terrorism is one big jigsaw puzzle;
4.   More immigration conditions at home.
5.  Summary is questioning why Canada is in Afghanistan. 

The current "war on terrorism" conflict is not unlike anything else that has happened in the last 
2.5 million years of human history.  More recently, there are causes, effects, and consequences 
affecting 19th and 20th historyin regards to Europe, the US, Russia, China, central Asia, old 
empires, authoritarians, Afghanistan, warlords, the Taliban, and Al-Qaeda, and Al-Qaeda 
wannabees.  This sets the context, those who ignore geo-history are  doomed to repeat it.

Canadian involvement in Afghanistan is affected by the attacks performed by Al-Qaeda on 
our allies, the cells and documented terrorist activities occurring through and within our borders, 
threats made against our country by terrorist organizations (Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah directly), 
and terrorist intimidation of Canadian interests  overseas.  Can it be argued that Canada is involved 
whether we want to be or not?

Afghanistan was the major physical training region for Al-Qaeda for some time.  Taliban 
support of Al-Qaeda is a fact.  Since the Taliban would not cease their support of Al-Qaeda in
the light of 9/11, the US/NATO had the means to take the fight to the region.

Canadian continuing involvement in Afganistan reduces the ability of old Taliban elements 
returning to power, stops further physical support of Al-Qaeda in the region, and reduces 
one area/support structure in which ourenemies can exploit.

The US and other countries are pressuring African, Middle East, Central Asian, and SE 
Asian governmentsand NGOs/other from supporting AL-Qaeda through diplomacy, the UN, and 
financial/military threats or incentives.

If Canada was to remove itself from Afghanistan, or countries of interest, the warlords and 
Taliban authority figures with weapons would once again take power in the various AFG regions 
and any rule of law or humanitarian undertaking developed would disappear.  Al-Qaeda would
gain further support and that is not in Canadian interests.

In another sense, global conflicts like this cannot be solved simply in one day.  Theres no easy 
solution.  Most conflicts are based on actions, counteractions, strategy, consequences, that play 
out until there is a conclusion.  Continuing involvement by countries in Afghanistan will allow the 
establishment of the rule of law in the long term and eliminate the return of terrorist support.

As far as domestic Canadian policy affecting immigration, the charter of rights, and various 
Acts, ...well...good luck with that.  Old country problems brought into Canada from first generation 
immigrants and idealogical festering in cultural ghettos can be in conflict with Canadian laws and 
main-stream social value.  I know a Chinese restaurant owner who served in the PLA 
(or so he said).  He said if the US and Canada ever went to war against China, he wouldn't be on
 our side.  I have no idea how much fact or bravado was in that statement.  However, it kinda 
bothered me as this is IN Canada.  Despite this, I've seen this guy hand out food to hobos, help 
people off the street, engage anyone in conversation, and seems like a decent enough guy, 
even more than most.  Complicated issues that cannot be addressed in bi-polarized
discussions.  Good luck with that.


** Since typing this up, there were 23 replies to the thread.  Holy Cr*p! I have no idea whether 
anything I've written is relevent anymore (or ever was so) but I've spent enough time that i'm not 
deleting it so I'm clicking post...


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (4 Mar 2006)

No worries Bert if you can help bring this back on topic despite CannonFodders attempts to derail,  it would be a godsend.


----------



## KevinB (4 Mar 2006)

The comments of a lot of armchair experts in Afghan political Affairs and Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs are quite astounding. :


I had a rather large rant typed up - but I figure it would be lost on those who have never worn the uniform - or are like Cannonfodder disgruntled about the UNPROFOR days.

However Afghan is a win-lose situation -- if we (coalition) help the Afghan gov't and the ANA, ANP stabilize the country we have gained a productive ally and are supporting a democratically elected gov't - if we dont help the Taliban and Al-Q will via allies in Pakistans ISI and other nations that would profit  from our failure - will step up and the country will be in turmoil for years.

Sudan is a LOSE-LOSE situation - like the 92-93 Somalia deployments -- IF the troops do nothing - they are worthless paper tigers.  IF the troops are active they will end up in large firefights with the Gov't, military and the supported jajawe militias  -- white troops killing blacks - not good press either...


I'd like to see a robust CF able to conduct Brigade sized missions in both theatres -- however the realist in my says the Cdn taxpayer will never fund it -- and we saw from Somalia that even 1000 good deeds does not mitigate 1 misdeed and that is all the public seem to care about.  IF the forces went into Sudan it would have to be with the Cdn poulaces full knowledge it was a drag them out dirty shooting WAR...


----------



## Slim (4 Mar 2006)

Very good post! (this was meant for Bert's post but your is good too Kev)

Thanks for bringing this back on track everyone.


----------



## Franko (4 Mar 2006)

Bert said:
			
		

> ** Since typing this up, there were 23 replies to the thread.  Holy Cr*p! I have no idea whether
> anything I've written is relevent anymore (or ever was so) but I've spent enough time that i'm not
> deleting it so I'm clicking post...



 :rofl:

Thanks for that.....and this thread needs all the help it can get.

Regards


----------



## Cannonfodder (4 Mar 2006)

Fundementally the the terrorists fled Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban . At this point Canada is not threatened by terrorists in Afghanistan . Not to run down the work of our troops because they are doing good work in Astan but this does prevent terrorist attacks in the west .


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (4 Mar 2006)

Cannonfodder said:
			
		

> Fundementally the the terrorists fled Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban . At this point Canada is not threatened by terrorists in Afghanistan . Not to run down the work of our troops because they are doing good work in Astan but this does prevent terrorist attacks in the west .



So what do you suggest? We let them work unmolested and wait for the next 9-11 to happen and kill more innocents? That might your modus operandi but I believe most decent folks with two brain cells would disagree with you.


----------



## RangerRay (4 Mar 2006)

Cannonfodder said:
			
		

> Fundementally the the terrorists fled Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban . At this point Canada is not threatened by terrorists in Afghanistan . Not to run down the work of our troops because they are doing good work in Astan but this does prevent terrorist attacks in the west .



So who has been attacking us there?  The tooth fairy?


----------



## Michael OLeary (4 Mar 2006)

Cannonfodder said:
			
		

> Fundementally the the terrorists fled Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban . At this point Canada is not threatened by terrorists in Afghanistan . Not to run down the work of our troops because they are doing good work in Astan but this does prevent terrorist attacks in the west .



No one action in any one area of the world will absolutely "prevent terrorist attacks in the west".  Do you agree, however, that the removal of the Taliban, and a long-term goal of improving the government system and standard of living for the average moderate Afghani citizen, will most likely reduce the possibility of terrorist activities being regularly supported from that particular corner of the world?

Is that not a worthwhile mission goal in a global context?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (4 Mar 2006)

Quote,
_Fundementally the the terrorists fled Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban_


WOW......... :rofl:    .so maybe we should chase them into Pakistan/Kashmir also? How about we finish one job at a time, those countries aren't going anywhere.


----------



## Bert (4 Mar 2006)

But Cannonfodder, you are assuming that if the terrorists are scattered, they'll likely go away.
Usually if person/groups are scattered from their "home", they will go to the next and sometimes
closest place of support/shelter.  If the coalition left Afghanistan, do you really really think
the Taliban and their sympathies/support of Al-Qaeda would not return?  Think of the weapon caches.
What impact would result on the people of Afghanistan?  Terrorism and its global influence will
affect us.  I'd rather take the fight to them (participate in a meaningful sense) than deal with the 
consequences (perhaps due in part to inaction) in my backyard but thats my opinion.


----------



## Cannonfodder (4 Mar 2006)

No matter what anybody says the fact remains that Karzai was picked by the west to lead Afghanistan even though he won an election he is still viewed as a Western puppet by the islamic world . A little known fact was that Karzai actually donated 50 000 dollars to the Taliban in 1994 , in fact Mullah Omar asked him to be there envoy to the UN . So how legitimate is the current government in Astan ? , better than what they had before but definately not squeaky clean . It is unfortunate that we feel the need to apply our beliefs to others without the thought that they may have a differant vision that may not be favorable to us .


----------



## Genetk44 (4 Mar 2006)

Cannonfodder...so what if Karzai had contacts with the Taliban in 94......GW Bushs government gave the Taliban millions of $$$s in the spring of 2001 just a few months before 9/11...how about we should be in Afghanistan because after 30 years of invasive war(USSR) and civil-war this poor country and its people need help to regain some stability and peace so they can rebuild. How about forgetting rhetoric and justifications( fighting terrorism,taliban etc) and decideing we're there because its just the right thing to do?
Gene


----------



## zipperhead_cop (4 Mar 2006)

Cannonfodder said:
			
		

> No matter what anybody says the fact remains that Karzai was picked by the west to lead Afghanistan even though he won an election he is still viewed as a Western puppet by the islamic world . A little known fact was that Karzai actually donated 50 000 dollars to the Taliban in 1994 , in fact Mullah Omar asked him to be there envoy to the UN . So how legitimate is the current government in Astan ? , better than what they had before but definately not squeaky clean . It is unfortunate that we feel the need to apply our beliefs to others without the thought that they may have a differant vision that may not be favorable to us .



Dude, back in the cold war, the Taliban were the good guys.  Everyone wanted to pile on Ivan the Red Commie dog, including the US.  Hindsite is always 20/20.  
What are you talking about with the vision and belief talk?  Does anyone really think that anybody has any "empire building" visions of A'stan?  Seriously, unless you are into rugged terrain and rock climbing, is there any redeeming quality to the area, other than it's strategic usefulness.  
I also would like to see a longer-than-two sentence justification for pulling out of A'stan and why it does not serve to fight terrorism to be there.


----------



## Gayson (4 Mar 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Cannonfodder and J Gayson,
> Methinks that you are being short-sighted in saying that it is not a fight on terror.
> You may be partly correct in your assumption that it won't stop them from recruiting more scumbags, however, just like you and I, most people just want a chance at a real life, and if we can show the rest of the possible recruiting area's that we [ the west] can bring peace and economic stability to a region, well maybe they will think there is hope and therefore.......



No, I AM saying IT IS a fight on terror.

I have interpreted Cannonfodders remarks as Afghanistan to NOT be the SOLE solution to Terrorism.

Afghanistan definitely IS the fight on terror, howeverm I believe that it is not the ONLY fight on terror that is required to garner success.


----------



## Michael OLeary (4 Mar 2006)

Cannonfodder said:
			
		

> No matter what anybody says ....




.... you're not going to change your opinion or open up to a wider view, so perhaps this discussion thread has already outlived its usefulness.




			
				Cannonfodder said:
			
		

> ...the fact remains that Karzai was picked by the west to lead Afghanistan even though he won an election he is still viewed as a Western puppet by the islamic world . A little known fact was that Karzai actually donated 50 000 dollars to the Taliban in 1994 , in fact Mullah Omar asked him to be there envoy to the UN . So how legitimate is the current government in Astan ?



Relevance?  Would you say this allegation disproves any validity to the mission in a global context?




			
				Cannonfodder said:
			
		

> ..., better than what they had before but definately not squeaky clean .



Is not better a good thing, even if it's not "sqeaky clean"? 




			
				Cannonfodder said:
			
		

> It is unfortunate that we feel the need to apply our beliefs to others without the thought that they may have a differant vision that may not be favorable to us .



How exactly are "we" applying "our beliefs"?  What beliefs are being oppressed?  The right to train and support terrorists?  Would you say that is a commonly held tenet of Afghani life?  It would appear to me that we make efforts to not offend the cultural beliefs of those in the countries we are in.


----------



## Gayson (4 Mar 2006)

Bert said:
			
		

> From my reading, your points are:
> 1.  Canadian involvement in Afghanistan will not prevent terrorism from happening;
> 2.  Terrorism is routed in many areas;
> 3.  Terrorism is one big jigsaw puzzle;
> ...



I completely agree with you here, even on the immigration issue.

Sadly, our laws do protect the few of the many good immigrants that due come to our country.

The reason why I brought up immigration as an issue for Terrorism is this.

It is known that many Islamic Extremists have been recruited in mosks.  Most mosks are located at or near large Islamic communities.

It would be wrong to not allow those to practice Islam to not have mosks, after all that would like taking church away from Christians.

If however, Immigrants were told that they had to live in a geographic location chosen by the government for a set period of time, suddenly the rate that which large ethnic communties will drastically decrease if not stop.

Instead we now have many smaller communities spread throughout the country which would result in:

-Many more religious buildings to be built in Canada to maintain the same amount of buildings per community (hypothetically).

-This makes it harder for people to be recruited in Terrorism because it would take MORE recruiters to cover the country than a few large communities.

-Since the immigrants are sent throughout the country and not allowed to immediately move into communities of their choosing, they are forced to interact with Canadians that probably don't completely share many of these values.  This would likely result in more Immigrants more effectively integrating into our Canadian and Western culture and thus reducing anti western values within our country.  This hopefully would make it harder to recruit your average immigrant or even first generation Canadian.

-Also they would allow Canada to have more people in places that it needs them.  If the person or family completed say a 3 year term at the "place" they could have the option of moving where ever they want like any Canadian, but I'm willing to bet that at least some would decide to settle down in or near the location they were assigned (parents could gotten could jobs, kid might like his/her school, whatever.)

But, I think I've gone way off topic now.

[EDIT] spelling.


----------



## reccecrewman (4 Mar 2006)

J. Gayson said:
			
		

> If however, Immigrants were told that they had to live in a geographic location chosen by the government for a set period of time, suddenly the rate that which large ethnic communties will drastically decrease if not stop.
> [EDIT] spelling.



Wow! Sort of like what we did with immigrated & naturalized Japanese Canadians during the second world war?  That was and is a black stain on this Country.  I realize that you didn't say to build giant pens to keep them in, but you may as well have.  "This is a free Country, but you have to live here, because we don't want terrorists and extremists contacting you to recruit you" This would be a huge sh!t sandwich if it happened. How would you ensure they stayed in the location chosen?  Would they have to carry papers? Horrible idea..............................


----------



## Journeyman (4 Mar 2006)

J. Gayson said:
			
		

> If however, Immigrants were told that they had to live in a geographic location chosen by the government for a set period of time....
> This makes it harder for people to be recruited in Terrorism because it would take MORE recruiters to cover the country ....
> Since the immigrants are sent throughout the country and not allowed to immediately move into communities of their choosing, they are forced to interact with Canadians that probably don't completely share many of these values.  This would likely result in more Immigrants more effectively integrating into our Canadian and Western culture



I'm not going to address most of your issues because your whole post is way off the topic of why we are in Afghanistan. However, I feel obligated to jump in on your "integration theory."

One easy test for some proposals is how you would feel if it were applied to you. After all, these various "others" are human, so your reactions _may_ be relevant, notwithstanding cultural differences. 

I'm going to assume that, for arguments' sake, you are a white, anglo male, who has moved to a weird place called Toronto. Welcome. Anyone you know from the old country is living in Toronto. You have just received a notice from the Canadian government saying you must live in Upper Buffalo Hump Saskatchewan for, what did you say, 2 years. It's currently -25 degrees. You've been practicing your English, but UBH, Sask is a Ukrainian community (established back before the government started dictating with whom immigrants could congregate).

Because you don't speak Ukrainian, and you're "different," you have a tough time finding a job - - after all, you don't have that social network of your kindred spirits in TO's ethnic neighbourhoods. It's not merely a case of embracing western values; the good citizens of UBH Sask don't want you dating their daughters - - you're different and you're obviously lazy, since you don't have a job.

Are you remotely bitter now? Not just bitter cold, but, you know.... disgruntled....at the society around you? Do you _need_ someone to come into a place of worship, or any other gathering place, to tell you that you're pissed off?

Do you really think such an "integration through segregation" plan would work if it were applied to you? Have you just not reduced the number of terrorist recruiters, since immigrants are now more predisposed to anger than before your plan went into effect?

Dictating where ethnic groupings of people will live has never worked before. The Jewish residents of the Warsaw Ghetto never said "oh, now i get it, I should like Nazism." I say that only because what you are proposing is pretty close to dictatorship.


ps: they're called "mosques."


----------



## Slim (4 Mar 2006)

People with jobs, education and a good place to live generally feel prosperous... 

Prosperous peope are happy...

Happy people seldom blow things up...

My 2 cents.

Slim


----------



## Gayson (4 Mar 2006)

If such a system were to be implemented, it would be obviously be done so for economic reasons before Canadian defence purposes.

Furthermore any government that implemented it for Terror reasons would lose their next election.

Also, immigrants would be sent to areas that are in serious need of labour for work.  I don't understand the problem with this, as placing an immigrant to work in a specific municipality is no different than an immigrant forced to be a dishwasher because his Engineering degree isn't recognized in Canada by the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers.

Furthermore,

If I was an immigrant and forced to live in Sask so I could permanently reside in Canada I would be force to learn English.

I suppose that's better than being able to live in TO off the plane, move directly into an ethnic community that will "support you".  As long as you live there its possible to live and work without ever learning how to speak on of Canada's 2 OFFICIAL LANGUAGES.  If your able to survive comfortably without learning English in a community that supports you than really you may never have to get citizenship, or even pay taxes for that matter.

http://apmp.berkeley.edu/APMP/pubs/agworkvisa/canada111503.html

200,000 illegal immigrants toiling in Canada's underground economy?

Free health care without paying taxes?

This sort of reminds me of the illegal immigrant I met, who is a friend of a friend I go to school with.  This individual makes $30/h doing roofing jobs in the construction industry if I remember.  Imagine how much money in taxes could be collected off this fellow?  problem is, he lives in a certain Latino community in Toronto as is therefore able to get away with it.

I don't know how my so called "integration theory" can be compared to Nazi Germany.

Maybe I was asleep in history class but I distinctly remember the Jews being _collected_ from their _homes_ and placed into a ghetto.  I never said immigrants already established in Canada should be moved, nor do I understand how anyone could come to that conclusion.

Finally,

I'm willing to bet any immigrant that is moving to Canada to find a better job is willing to risk having to live somewhere in Alberta.  Moving across the Pacific Ocean in search of a better life in itself is a huge risk, so I'm sure any immigrant that accepted that risk might be willing to live in Alberta for awhile.

Who knows, maybe they might actually LIKE living in the prairies and decide to settle there.


----------



## Gayson (4 Mar 2006)

Slim said:
			
		

> People with jobs, education and a good place to live generally feel prosperous...
> 
> Prosperous peope are happy...
> 
> ...



True, but not all suicide bombers are poor and angry with the world.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (4 Mar 2006)

J. Gayson said:
			
		

> Also, imiigrants would be sent to areas that are in serious need of labour for work.  I don't understand the problem with this, as placing an immigrant to work in a specifc municipality is no different than an immigrant forced to be a dishwasher because his Engineering degree isn't recognized in Canada by the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers.
> 
> If I was an immigrant and forced to live in sask so I could perminantly reside in Canada* I would be force to learn English.*



I'd be happy if someone forced you to learn English now, before your next post.


----------



## Gayson (4 Mar 2006)

Thank you for reminding me to use the Spell Check function.

Though, I don't see how forgetting to use it in my last post would indicate that I don't know how to speak English.

My point stands though,

Assigning new immigrants areas to live for a couple of years would yield economic benefits, and at the same time allow for greater security for Canada against Terrorism.


----------



## Michael OLeary (4 Mar 2006)

J. Gayson said:
			
		

> Also, immigrants would be sent to areas that are in serious need of labour for work.  I don't understand the problem with this, as placing an immigrant to work in a specific municipality is no different than an immigrant forced to be a dishwasher because his Engineering degree isn't recognized in Canada by the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers.



Just out of curiosity, what areas of the country have a "negative" employment rate, where you see these masses of "labourers" being placed and gainfully employed?

Secondly, what about a professional whose credentials are recognized, will we send him/her to one of these "settlement camps" whether or not he/she can be employed there in their field?



			
				J. Gayson said:
			
		

> My point stands though,
> 
> Assigning new immigrants areas to live for a couple of years would yield economic benefits, and at the same time allow for greater security for Canada against Terrorism.



How would you see this immigration plan of yours being policed?  We don't control the movement of citizens or landed immigrants now, so would we then have to do so?  Since not all immigrants are visible minorities, would we have to issue national identity cards (there was lots of support in that thread) to everyone, or just to everyone in a "settlement camp" area and control all movement in and out of those counties?


----------



## Cannonfodder (4 Mar 2006)

Getting back on topic , Afghanistan is a worthy cause however actions in Afghanistan do not prevent terrorist actions in the west . An aggressive assistance to restablish safety and security in a lawless land , not a war on terror or whatever they are selling it as . War on terror is a catch phrase that is way over used andis more often than not is misused . Al queda no longer has the robust training capabilities that it once had in Astan , now matter how you cut it  NATO actions will not stop terrorist attacks in the west . The embryos of future attacks are already in motion and no matter what actions are taken in Astan will ever prevent them .

   The fact is were all going to have to live with the possibility of terrorist attacks in the long term so if you rebuild Astan you might prevent Osama from setting up shop . Terrorists will take the path of least resistence , conducting training in Astan is risky so they will find places that are more friendly to there cause and offer sanctuary to them . He is the enemy but he is smart and to this date we [the west ] have reacted as he thought  we would . I dont offer any solutions but only a more radical unpredictable approach will offer the cessation of terrorist activities in the west .


----------



## zipperhead_cop (4 Mar 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Just out of curiosity, what areas of the country have a "negative" employment rate, where you see these masses of "labourers" being placed and gainfully employed?



Anywhere there is coal or salt mines.



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> How would you see this immigration plan of yours being policed?  We don't control the movement of citizens or landed immigrants now, so would we then have to do so?  Since not all immigrants are visible minorities, would we have to issue national identity cards (there was lots of support in that thread) to everyone, or just to everyone in a "settlement camp" area and control all movement in and out of those counties?



Explosive radio proximity collars.  Like on "The Running Man"


----------



## Michael OLeary (4 Mar 2006)

Cannonfodder said:
			
		

> Getting back on topic , Afghanistan is a worthy cause however actions in Afghanistan do not prevent terrorist actions in the west . An aggressive assistance to restablish safety and security in a lawless land , not a war on terror or whatever they are selling it as . War on terror is a catch phrase that is way over used andis more often than not is misused . Al queda no longer has the robust training capabilities that it once had in Astan , now matter how you cut it  NATO actions will not stop terrorist attacks in the west . The embryos of future attacks are already in motion and no matter what actions are taken in Astan will ever prevent them .
> 
> The fact is were all going to have to live with the possibility of terrorist attacks in the long term so if you rebuild Astan you might prevent Osama from setting up shop . Terrorists will take the path of least resistence , conducting training in Astan is risky so they will find places that are more friendly to there cause and offer sanctuary to them . He is the enemy but he is smart and to this date we [the west ] have reacted as he thought  we would .



Neither will one patrol car stop all B&Es in a neighbourhood, but it's not a valid argument to cease patrolling.



			
				Cannonfodder said:
			
		

> I dont offer any solutions...



Thank you for that clear admission.



			
				Cannonfodder said:
			
		

> ... but only a more radical unpredictable approach will offer the cessation of terrorist activities in the west .



I would think that Coalition operations to remove oppressive regimes that openly support the training of terrorists on their soil is a pretty radical approach.  An interesting side thread could possible be what could be the next order of "radical unpredictable approach" (that would remain supportable in a Coalition sense) once this drives the first level of support by such regimes underground.


----------



## Cannonfodder (4 Mar 2006)

Granted your going to take losses on such a mission  , however you have to admit that the federal government has not been very forth coming  with mission parameters to the public . The public will only react to the information they are given so far that has not been much . All this talk of War on Terror , an overly honest  CDS and you have heaps of ammunition for the liberal slanted media . I think the CF and the federal government really needs to sell this mission to the Canadian public , people are reasonable , present  them with the facts with out the dramatic overtones and you should be able to sell this one more effectively .


----------



## zipperhead_cop (4 Mar 2006)

Hey, maybe try selling it with a little humor!  From an email I just got...


Edited for inappropriate post....


----------



## wongskc (4 Mar 2006)

J. Gayson said:
			
		

> Assigning new immigrants areas to live for a couple of years would yield economic benefits, and at the same time allow for greater security for Canada against Terrorism.



Aside from what's already been said, your proposal would almost certainly be seen as a violation of the mobility rights that are outlined by the Charter.


----------



## QV (4 Mar 2006)

In response to the question at the start of this post:

Because there are oppressed people there who need our help.


----------



## Kat Stevens (4 Mar 2006)

"I'm willing to bet any immigrant that is moving to Canada to find a better job is willing to risk having to live somewhere in Alberta.  Moving across the Pacific Ocean in search of a better life in itself is a huge risk, so I'm sure any immigrant that accepted that risk might be willing to live in Alberta for awhile."



No, thank you.  Alberta already has imported labour from across this great land that we don't have enough housing for... 8)


----------



## Slim (4 Mar 2006)

> I'm willing to bet any immigrant that is moving to Canada to find a better job is willing to risk having to live somewhere in Alberta.



The moment we start to restrict the freedom of movement of any citizen in Canada (unless they've been either indicted or convicted of a criminal offence) the terrorists win a round and we as a society loose one.

Telling newly arrived immigrants that they must live in a certain place, even for a time, is a violation of our rights and freedoms and gives validity to the enemies of this country and the efforts to destabilize our society are one step closer to becoming reality.

Every Canadian has the right to live freely and choose the place that they wish to live in without fear or prejudice.


----------



## GO!!! (5 Mar 2006)

Slim said:
			
		

> Every Canadian has the right to live freely and choose the place that they wish to live in without fear or prejudice.



Are not newly arrived immigrants already assigned areas where their skills are in the highest demand? I was under the impression that this was the case, that only refugees were permitted to reside in the cities of their choice.


----------



## Kiel vonAachen (5 Mar 2006)

Pike, what would insecure folks like you do if you didn't have us Americans to blame for every real and imaginary evil in the world? I mean if you could not blame the USA, who would you blame? Would it fall to maybe Monaco to pick up the Great Satan role? Even allowing for America's cultural imperialism (which by the way is more a function of the communications revolution than a plot by the CIA to annex Canada), your suggestion that brave Canadian soldiers are being placed in harm's way in southern Afghanistan to appease my government is an insult to Canada and the USA. You seem to have forgotten that the world changed on 9/11. You may prefer to live in a dreamworld, but the truth is this: there are governments, political movements, and terrorist groups that want to destroy us. You are foolish to believe that the Muslim extremists, North Korea, and Iran love you. They would kill you and your family in a New York minute.If you are fortunate enough to have a long,meaningful life, you should thank some young Canadian who is humping his ass off right now in the snow in the mountains of Afghanistan.Trust me. He didn't go over there to cozy up to George W and Karl Rove.He's there to protect people like you and me and to protect the innocent Afghans who cannot protect themselves. And just for the record, I'm a liberal Democrat who voted against George Bush in 2000 and 2004. I happen to believe that Bush,the Republican party, and their evangelical Christian extremist buddies have done unbelievable damage to my country and my people;however, this belief does not prevent me from supporting those who are on the front line of the War on Terrorism.


----------



## Good2Golf (5 Mar 2006)

+10 for Kiel.  Good to know it isn't just some of us Canucks who think that way!

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## reccecrewman (5 Mar 2006)

Another thing that strikes as odd WRT Afghanistan.  This includes Iraq as well.  Militant terrorists that have a penchant for rounding up Western infidels, then cruelly executing them on tape for broadcast on Al-Jazeera and the internet, really don't give 2 craps that you may believe that Western powers have no business over there.  There have been people executed that were not military, they were there with NGO's trying to help these people out and several believe that Western military has no business in the affairs over there.  Protestors here in North America who are screaming for Bush and all Western powers to leave the middle east just don't seem to understand that if they got the chance, they'd have their head cut off by these militants..................  Wake up!  There's a job to be done that we were asked to do and we are going to do it. Period.  Our CDS (by the direction of our political masters) has placed his soldiers in harms way for a legitimate cause - so please, all people who seem to believe they are speaking on Canada's soldiers behalf by questioning our reasons for being there and screaming for us to pull out, dig deeper and get the facts straight.  There's no oil involved here, we're not appeasing the Bush administration, and we're not just blindly following our NATO partners for sh!ts & giggles.  

On an offnote here, yet on topic - it would be nice to see our PM address the Nation on TV (put it on every freakin Canadian channel like they do when there's a political debate) and have him explain to the Canadian public exactly what our mandate is in Afghanistan, why we're there........... Get the Canadian Press on board, because they don't seem to grasp what we're doing there either. "Another Canadian peacekeeper was killed in Afghanistan today and 2 others wounded........" Arrrrrrghhh!  I know I hate being asked by civvies back home what it was like peacekeeping in Afghanistan.............. Not their fault, that's the impression being conveyed.

Regards


----------



## Cannonfodder (5 Mar 2006)

You know and not to get off topic , but we are all reasonably educated people with opinions ,some not all that differant than others but we still end up in heated exchanges [I dont know if the anymotity  of the internet has anything to do with it] . Now if one was to remove the baseline standard of education , standard of living , and add some religious or ethnic hatred , nothing would get discussed . We have a hard time listening to others of differing opinion our perceived need to be right sometimes for goes  the possibility of resolution through discussion . As a civilized society we are not that differant than those conflict rich areas , we have a hard time listening to others when they do not recite what we think they should .


----------



## Slim (5 Mar 2006)

> As a civilized society we are not that differant than those conflict rich areas ,



When was the last time you were forced to wear an orange jumpsuite and be threatened with having your head cut off if someone didn't agree with the current arguement being presented?

Sorry but I have a hard time swallowing that.


----------



## Cannonfodder (5 Mar 2006)

I guess you can speak from expieriance .


----------



## Slim (5 Mar 2006)

Cannonfodder said:
			
		

> I guess you can speak from expieriance .



I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean.

You are comparing our society with the over there in which they kidnapp you and cut your head off if you dissagree with them. have I got that right?


----------



## Cannonfodder (5 Mar 2006)

We are both equal in that we cannot see the others point  ,  let alone listen to what the other person has to say . Our ears are not in gear we are already formulating a reply .The point is we let emotion cloud our ability to use logic and in that fashion we are all the same .


----------



## Slim (5 Mar 2006)

Cannonfodder said:
			
		

> We are both equal in that we cannot see the others point  ,  let alone listen to what the other person has to say . Our ears are not in gear we are already formulating a reply .The point is we let emotion cloud our ability to use logic and in that fashion we are all the same .



To be quite honset with you I believe that we hold our society to much higher standard of behaviour.

Sure there may be people here who would do what the Taliban and the AQ are doing. But society would hunt them and punish them if they did. And, in my experience, we (as a largely Christian society) have been raised to be kind and charitable to others, a few odd characters not withstanding.

Although people insist that the Muslim religion is one of peace (and I have nothing against Muslims or anyone else) they don't seem to want to act the part...

Who is controlling/moderating the behaviour of the radicals in the middle east?


----------



## GO!!! (5 Mar 2006)

Cannonfodder said:
			
		

> We are both equal in that we cannot see the others point  ,  let alone listen to what the other person has to say . Our ears are not in gear we are already formulating a reply .The point is we let emotion cloud our ability to use logic and in that fashion we are all the same .



Sorry, I think you are waaay off the mark on this one.

You are trying to draw a similarity between the western world and the asian/eastern world in term of a dispute resolution system, which is a mistake. 

In very broad strokes, the west is based upon the needs, rights and the opinions of the individual, while in the east it is based upon the group (be it family, clan, community etc. As a result, we are appalled when an individual suffers and dies at the hands of monsters cloaked in religious extremism. In eastern society, killing is a deterrent to the larger group, and not especially rare or uncommon. As such, our aversion to killing is exploited, and their disregard for individual life is entrenched. 

There is no "point" to be discussed. Which society do you want to live in? Are you willing to fight for it?


----------



## Cannonfodder (5 Mar 2006)

Thanks for confirming what I posted earlier .


----------



## Franko (5 Mar 2006)

Cannonfodder said:
			
		

> Thanks for confirming what I posted earlier .



That makes absolutly no sense. Who are you directing this to?

Regards


----------



## zipperhead_cop (5 Mar 2006)

Didn't cannonfodder get called out a while ago to substantiate the views he is throwing around?  Thus far, the responders are being fairly articulate, and fodder is just lobbing trite nonsense around.  
Dude, if you argued yourself into a corner, then man up and bow out.  The only reason you keep getting flamed is because you keep opening yourself up.  
I understand the desire to not have anyone get killed on an Op.  No one wants to see that.  But I think we can kiss goodbye the days of going to Cypress and working on your tan and just hanging out in the Mediterranean for a few months.  The world is in a fairly critical junction at this point.  Countries with resources and abilities (like us) have a responsibility to try to make the other nations that need help stable and viable. It was through disregarding them for so long that the resentment of the west was so easy to foster.  If we turn our backs on these people again and leave the country to fall back to the cluster that it was, there will be a whole generation of Afghani's that will view us as cowards that cut and run when the going got tough, and with a little tweeking from a radical mullah, that opinion can be massaged into believing that it is our whole culture that is bankrupt and thus it is justified to do anything to us in order to bring about a world of Islam.  We only hear about the crap over there, bombings, riots.  I bet there are hundreds of stories, about soldiers sharing water or food, units rebuilding schools or hospitals, medics supplying aid to people who would have otherwise died in the street.  That is the kind of one on one interaction that will ultimately foster good will in these nations and make them realize that there is a better life beyond a theocratic doom state that the radicals are trying to pursue.  
I am very hesitant to recommend this, but if you can catch it as a rental, watch the movie Syriana.  It was long and boring, but it was a pretty good portrayal of the dynamics over in the middle east, particularly if you are interested in the oil/arab/religion/terrorism link.  Again, caution***not the best movie ever***


----------



## Slim (5 Mar 2006)

ZC

Good post. I agrre with it 100%

Slim


----------



## Cannonfodder (5 Mar 2006)

Afghanistan was , is , and will continue to be a failed state . Religion , regional politics , economic situation will see to that , to think any differant is to be nieve . Sure you will make inroads  but gains can be quickly erased by events outside your control as those cartoons demonstrated the volitility of the situation . What will happen if a western country [not to be mentioned ] bombs a certain neighbours uranium enrichment facility ?, back to square one . Be omptimistic but dont be surprised  if it all goes to sheet .


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Mar 2006)

Cannonfodder said:
			
		

> Afghanistan was , is , and will continue to be a failed state . Religion , regional politics , economic situation will see to that , to think any differant is to be nieve . Sure you will make inroads  but gains can be quickly erased by events outside your control as those cartoons demonstrated the volitility of the situation . What will happen if a western country [not to be mentioned ] bombs a certain neighbours uranium enrichment facility ?, back to square one . Be omptimistic but dont be surprised  if it all goes to sheet .



Such wonderful faith in mankind. With the earth populated with so many as yourself, it's no wonder we're in such a shitty state.


----------



## Gayson (5 Mar 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Just out of curiosity, what areas of the country have a "negative" employment rate, where you see these masses of "labourers" being placed and gainfully employed?
> 
> Secondly, what about a professional whose credentials are recognized, will we send him/her to one of these "settlement camps" whether or not he/she can be employed there in their field?
> 
> How would you see this immigration plan of yours being policed?  We don't control the movement of citizens or landed immigrants now, so would we then have to do so?  Since not all immigrants are visible minorities, would we have to issue national identity cards (there was lots of support in that thread) to everyone, or just to everyone in a "settlement camp" area and control all movement in and out of those counties?



I'm answering these questions since Micheal has touched on some important points.  I do wish to stay on topic though, if someone would like to continue the conversation of immigration please ask a mod or start a thread.

1)  Saskatchewan is one such province as discussed in the following link:

http://www.clbc.ca/Media_Room/newsletters_archive/news_WT12310301.asp

2) I do believe that an immigrant should be encouraged to persue a job that is in line with their education, especially for a high level profession like engineering, science, medicine etc. . . 

However the problem with immigrants not getting these jobs do not lie within our immigration laws but rather within the educational guidelines set by the licensing bodies of their career paths.  For example the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers typically make it very hard for an immigrant to gain a P.Eng without redoing their degree in Canada.

If we want immigrants to be able to fill these spots than the first thing to do is re address the education and experience requirements within the application licensing bodies.

3) I do not think it would be good to send immigrants to "settlement camps" as this is fundamentally the same as immigrants moving within their own respective ethnic communities.  Furthermore having a defined area called something along the lines of a "settlement camp" could likely lead to racial tension between immigrants and the existing populace.   would argue that immigrants should be encouraged to move within existing communties.

4) Along the lines of policing immigrant movement.  I cannot give a definite answer to this question since I am hardly an expert on the topic.  Frankly I lie rather impartial to having national identity cards.  I could see having something along the lines of an landed immigrant work permit to be one method of tracking their whereabouts, also their place of residence could be monitored through tax payments and Statistics Canada as in both systems the persons address is known.

Finally the 2-3 year period could be added to one of the requirements for Canadian citizenship.  I believe this would be a good way to encourage an newly landed family to cooperate.  They complete their 2-3 years living and working within a community, paying taxes, and they become eligible to apply for citizenship.  When they finish their 2-3 years they also are given the freedom to move where they like.

The reason why I believe this system would be good for Canada economically is that communities that NEED people are guaranteed to have these people for at least 2-3 years.  Though everyone would have the right to move away after 2-3 years, I suspect some if not many would stay within their communties because of the ties within the community and with their neighbours that they would make.

Finally, not 100% of all immigrants would be expected to follow this system.  For example if a single member of a family comes to Canada and does his or her 2-3 years, gets a home, a nice job and decides to bring the rest of his _immediate_ family, his family would live with him or her and not be applicable to the 2-3 year rule.

International students would still be able to attend and live at or near the school of their choosing.

Finally, if a family gets placed in a community where they cannot find a job, or they really hate where they live, they can apply for relocation.  The 2-3 years are counted in time from when they arrive to their first community to when they finish at the last community.

Also once a family is given an area to live, they got a job, kids are going to school, they have the right to stay their if they choose during the 2-3 year period, the government cannot force them to relocate.

Anyways, back on topic.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (5 Mar 2006)

Cannonfodder said:
			
		

> Afghanistan was , is , and will continue to be a failed state . Religion , regional politics , economic situation will see to that , to think any differant is to be nieve . Sure you will make inroads  but gains can be quickly erased by events outside your control as those cartoons demonstrated the volitility of the situation . What will happen if a western country [not to be mentioned ] bombs a certain neighbours uranium enrichment facility ?, back to square one . Be omptimistic but dont be surprised  if it all goes to sheet .



"Evil flourishes when good men sit idle".  I always liked that quote.  A'stan isn't going anywhere.  What do you think we should do, force it to be evacuated, put up a fence and use it as an arty range?  There are real people who live there, who through no fault of their own are stuck in a crap storm.  The reason that it is a failed state is that it has been in a constant state of instability for generations.  People need to have a sense of hope before they can start to rebuild.  If we screw off now, those people are done for.  All of the terrorist rats will come back out of the hills, kill all of the people who tried to be community leaders, and turn the place back into a terrorist training ground.  I can't believe someone who has military experience has such a lack of resolve to see a mission through.


----------



## Gayson (5 Mar 2006)

Cannonfodder said:
			
		

> Afghanistan was , is , and will continue to be a failed state . Religion , regional politics , economic situation will see to that , to think any differant is to be nieve . Sure you will make inroads  but gains can be quickly erased by events outside your control as those cartoons demonstrated the volitility of the situation . What will happen if a western country [not to be mentioned ] bombs a certain neighbours uranium enrichment facility ?, back to square one . Be omptimistic but dont be surprised  if it all goes to sheet .



I think it all depends on how far Canada and her allies are willing to go.

Every other conflict in history surrounding Afghanistan has seen the at temp to CONQUER it.

We are not trying to do so, but rather rebuild it and give it to the people who live there.

If your average citizen in Afghanistan WANTS to see their country rebuilt, and DO NOT want the Taliban and Al-Qaeda to have a presence, would you not agree we have the support of the average person there?

If we have the support of the average person, I would argue that this conflict is different than those previous and thus unlike the ones before HAS a chance of success.


----------



## ArmyRick (5 Mar 2006)

To the originator of this thread, Pike. R U for real? Live in the Real world, pal.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (5 Mar 2006)

Pike did a bit of trolling then took off.  She has a website that was posted a few times on other threads then she never came back.  It was just an advertising ploy for a dying hippie site.


----------



## Cannonfodder (5 Mar 2006)

I hate to say it but this thing will never be resolved in our life time , you can make inroads but any stability will be tenuous for many years . Your mission is also tenuous a new government , a botched raid could spell the end of your deployment . Iam not being pessimistic just being realistic about the prospects . If the accident tempo maintains it current level this could be the end of your deployment sooner than later . Commanders will be encouraged to play it safe by there political masters and any high risk high reward missons will be shelved , in effect they will render your effort inert . If you oversuscribe to this mission you really setting yourself up for disappointment .


----------



## Pte_Martin (5 Mar 2006)

Cannonfodder said:
			
		

> I hate to say it but this thing will never be resolved in our life time , you can make inroads but any stability will be tenuous for many years . Your mission is also tenuous a new government , a botched raid could spell the end of your deployment . Iam not being pessimistic just being realistic about the prospects . If the accident tempo maintains it current level this could be the end of your deployment sooner than later . Commanders will be encouraged to play it safe by there political masters and any high risk high reward missons will be shelved , in effect they will render your effort inert . If you oversuscribe to this mission you really setting yourself up for disappointment .




In Bosnia we fixed the problem didn't we? and that was in our Lifetime


----------



## Cannonfodder (5 Mar 2006)

RHFC said:
			
		

> In Bosnia we fixed the problem didn't we? and that was in our Lifetime


  


  Apples and oranges my friend differant ball game .


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (5 Mar 2006)

After WWI we went home, and left Germany a failed state, in economic and social collapse.  Accordingly, we went back in WWII and left a second generation of Canadian dead atop the same fields.  Choosing to avoid the cost in blood and treasure of rebuilding your fallen foes is the quickest way to assure that you will meet them again when the children and grandchildren arise from their poverty to regain their pride by seeking revenge; long the cheapest and easiest way to motivate a dispirited society.  After WWII we learned this lesson, and the US (so commonly hated by those who fail to actually study the history they quote) spent lavishly to ensure that the former Axis powers were rebuilt, and the generations to come did not learn hate in the squalor of a failed state, but co-operation amongst equals, and now number amongst our allies.  In Afghanistan we have a nation that has been shattered by conquest, guerrilla warfare, regional factionalism, and religious suppression.  Those Afghan's who have tried to rebuild have been repeatedly looted, beaten, and frequently murdered for trying to put the pieces back together.  If we do not stay long enough to weed out the would be warlords and religious fanatics, we will ensure that our departure will again see a regime indistinguishable from the Taliban restored within a year, and renewed terrorism spreading from Afghanistan back towards our shores.  We must ensure that the Afghan people have the time to rebuild, that the next generation has the chance to attempt to live under the rule of law, to see their people governed by the will of the people, not by the top killer of the day.  Why are we in Afghanistan?  We came to topple a terrorist regime that attacked our closest ally and neighbor, we stay to rebuild the country so it will not fall prey to terrorist scum again.


----------



## GO!!! (5 Mar 2006)

Cannonfodder,

Although I find your constantly nonsensical posts rather puzzling, what would you have us do?

If we were not in A-Stan, then where? Would it be better for us to stay in Canada and die a slow death of dry rot? A-stan is a theatre in the War on Terror, and as a small power, one in which we can make a contribution, in conjunction with our allies. 

You seem to define yourself with a) omnipotent knowledge which you neglect to bestow upon us, and b) opposition to all current policies/deployments/decisions.

Now that we know what you are against, what would you have us *DO*?


----------



## reccecrewman (5 Mar 2006)

Very well said. Those are reasons worth investing time, money & resources into.


----------



## Cannonfodder (5 Mar 2006)

You want to solve the problem the first thing you have to do is kill the Saudi Arabian wahhabist sects that sponsor those Madrassahs in Pakistan and the rest of the Muslim world .These Maddrassahs teach a Sunni version of Terminator 2 , brain washing facilities that provide foot soldiers for the global jihad . The next step would be to close down the Maddrassahs , this is the source of Islamic extremism , period . The problem is that they are the only place common people can get an education ,so a replacement will have to be offered . It is a start but treating the effects does not cure the disease these are hard bold decisive actions that will at least cut off the supply issues of the problems ,the rest could be eliminated by attrition .


----------



## Gayson (5 Mar 2006)

Please provide a source for Maddrassahs.


----------



## Redeye (5 Mar 2006)

J. Gayson said:
			
		

> Please provide a source for Maddrassahs.



Madrassa is the Arabic word for "school".  Specifically in this context it refers to Wahabbist Islamic schools that are basically the indoctrination centres for fundamentalist extremists.  If you look up "Wahhabi" in Wikipedia there's a better explanation than I'll be able to give ever.  Such schools (often sponsored by rich patrons from the Arab world, particularly Saudi Arabia) teach an extremely narrow interpretation of the Quran and this is what often translates into seeing jihad as a violent conflict (which, some Muslim scholars argue, isn't what it's meant to mean at all!)


----------



## Gayson (5 Mar 2006)

Cool, thanks for the explaination.

Time to head over to wiki. . .


----------



## Redeye (5 Mar 2006)

J. Gayson said:
			
		

> Cool, thanks for the explaination.
> 
> Time to head over to wiki. . .



The 9/11 Commission's report is another good read about the influence of Qutbism and Wahhabism on al Qaeda and Islamic fundamentalism.


----------



## a_beautiful_tragedy (6 Mar 2006)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I can't believe you came here to make a statement like that. That is what's known as a troll, and you've just given the dictionary definition. Take a hike.
> 
> The Glog and Mog is a Lieberal rag that perpetuates falsehoods and half truths to support their raison de tere of the week, and garner Lieberal grants and funds. Similar to the totally misconstrued falsehoods perpetrated by that other prominent Ottawa rag. When the Lieberals were in, the military could do no wrong, with the deployments they sent us on, lacking equipment, supplies and manpower. Now that the Conservatives are in, the Lieberals are bitching, heaping blame on the mission THEY created and started us on, trying to make the Conservatives the fall guys for the Lieberal folly. Two faced lying pieces of crap. Their own, supposed saviour, P Martin JUNIOR, didn't even have the balls to stick it out and defend his own position. I use the term JUNIOR, because I knew his Dad personally. He was the last honest, caring, constituent friendly MP, the Lieberals had.
> 
> ...



ohhhh buddy.....BURN !!


----------



## regulator12 (6 Mar 2006)

I agree with both sides with respect to if and why we are in Afganistan. We could debate why we are there and if its good or not till we are blue in the face. Bottom line is we have gone there and commited to this war on terror or whatever you want to label it as. We simply can not finish what has been started there. I believe that will cause more problems in the long run. We will never solve the worlds problems, stop terrorism, stop wars, stop genocided whatever, but we can help rebuild a country because they deserve to be rebuilt and deserve a chance to live a life not a western life but there own, and in the process we can try to stop wars, and chase terrorist around the globe because we can as a nation...In the long run which matters more it will be worth it....there are always reasons to wars that benefit countries interests, money, oil,power,drug trade, whatever thats a given, We went to Afganistan, and i believe need to stay to finish the job. Or we could just become neutral and do nothing in this world......


----------



## Bograt (6 Mar 2006)

I was home on leave today, watching Breakfast TV on ATV (CTV affiliate in Eastern Canada). The hosts erupted in an editorial rebuke of Canadian Forces in Afghanistan. To which I felt compelled to write a response. 

------
I would like to take this opportunity to inform Mr. Baxter and the rest of your BT staff on some of the issues relating to the Canadian Forces deployment in Afghanistan. Mr. Baxter's  impromptu editorial on the CF's role in Afghanistan  has highlighted common misinformation that is held as fact by some. Specifically, Mr Baxter's raises several fallacies.

1. 50 years of peacekeeping tradition is being squandered by this new mission.

2. The CF will ultimately be unsuccessful if history is any predictor on the future (Soviet Union's experience).

3. We are in Afghanistan to "appease" the Americans.

Canadian public has long been told that Canadians are "peacekeepers." This concept apparently communicates a sterile unbiased and neutral guardian. Unfortunately this is a myth that has been espoused by many former governments. The fact is members of the Canadian Forces are Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen and women who's duty is to to protect Canadian Sovereignty and promote our interest abroad. Peacekeeping is a job that we are occasionally asked to do. It is not a Canadian phenomenon, in fact we rank 30th in the world behind countries like Bangladesh when it comes to participation in Blue Helmet roles. It is also important to understand that peacekeeping is a long commitment. We have been in Cyprus for over 40 years.

Unfortunately, traditional peacekeeping is uncommon in the post cold war reality. No longer are the days when blue helmets positioned themselves in between to obliging parties. One only needs to look at the Canadian experience in the former Yugoslavia. Canadians engaged and killed  combatants under the auspices of NATO to restore order.  There wasn't any "moral outrage" when 2PPCLI engaged and killed Croatian special forces who were responsible for war crimes against Serbs. We were involved in air strikes that forced unwilling parties to the peace table. Peacemaking is the new reality.

The second issue is the myth that our actions will be unsuccessful due to the experience of history. It is important to understand that Canada is being asked to contribute by an elected government that comprises the interests of Afghan people who want nothing more of war. Who want to be able to raise their families, send their kids to school, and make a living without risk of beheading, public hanging, and other forms of retribution. To equate the current situation to that which happened in the past 30 years is irresponsible and ignorant.

Finally, the argument that we are there to appease the Americans. First, the United States are our closest ally to which we share many common priorities. However, Canada is a sovereign nation and seeks out its own foreign policy that it views follows the Canadian identity. Canada is a member of NATO, and with that we have certain responsibilities. After September 11th 2001, NATO for the first time was called upon to enact its reason d'etre- collective self defence. An attack on one country is an attack on all. Canada is in Afghanistan with other NATO countries and the international community. Over 20 countries comprise the multinational effort to bring the war devastated country back to the world stage. If the world community turns its back on this country, expect more death and destruction here and abroad. To think otherwise is reminiscent of Chamberlain's folly with Hitler, "Peace in our time". This argument only highlights one's biases against the US and not the reality.

I hope that your BT hosts become informed on the issue. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are home to many serving CF members and their families. To communicate such ignorant positions is not only a blemish on their "journalistic integrity" but it is an insult to all those families.

Regards,

2Lt Bograt

edited typo in preamble.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Mar 2006)

Bagrat

Very well written letter.  Please keep us informed as to what response back you may receive, if any.


----------



## sapper07 (6 Mar 2006)

This thread is getting nasty!  To get to the original question, we are in fact in Afghanistan as part of a collective self-defence.  Following the terrorist attacks against the United States, on 2 October 2001 NATO declared that because it had determined that the attacks against the United States had been directed from abroad, they were regarded as an action covered by Article 5 of the NATO Treaty.  Article 5 stipulates that an armed attack against one or several members shall be considered as an attack against all.  The Government of Canada used this determination, in addition to a request for assistance from the United States, as the basis for its involvement in the coalition operation against Afghanistan more directly the Taliban and it's supporters.  This action was in keeping with both the UN Charter (Article 51 of the United Nations Charter which states basically that nothing in the present charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations) and customary international law, as the UN Security Council had not yet taken action.  Currently we are there under a UN santioned mission, being lead by NATO on the UNs behalf.  

  So we are not there because of a want to "rub shoulders" with the Americans.  We are there because a country that was attacked and who is part of an organization known throughout the world X2 (United Nations + NATO) has a signed treaty and articles that all member countries agree to.  One of which is Article 5 of NATO and known as Article 51 within the UN.  It's a commitment and the military of each country, as an extension of the government, is trying to do the right thing by maintaining international peace and stability.  This is not American Policy this is International Policy.   

  Now here is a question to ponder, "what would have happend if we had'nt gone into Afghanistan?"  What's your opinion?

  PS I don't believe the US has any business in Iraq and they never did, under international law.  WMD, ya good one.


----------



## Journeyman (6 Mar 2006)

regulator12 said:
			
		

> We could debate why we are there and if its good or not till we are blue in the face.



...and, in fact, we ARE going to have to debate this until we're blue in the face. 
See  " 'We don't want to be in a war' NDP leader demands House vote on Canada's role in Afghanistan."
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=7b82291c-b902-41bf-a1b8-e80e9cf7b736&k=8623

While Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay reponded that "the government can't afford to waver in its support of the mission in Afghanistan [and that] Canada's involvement is not up for debate" (same article), as long as opposition politicians, university academics desperate for "a cause," and uninformed people arguing from their barstools and Timmy's tables continue with the peacekeeper myth, _ someone_ is going to have to provide informed debate.

Good letter Bograt.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Mar 2006)

I think we, in the military community, should face a couple of facts:

•	_Peacekeeping_ is, now, part of Canada’s national mythology.  It is a silly, sophomoric lie but it’s all there – part of the _”The world need more Canada”_ nonsense.  Canadians have convinced themselves – have been convinced by an *ignorant, lazy, self obsessed media* which has done little other than act as stenographers, taking dictation from Liberal Party of Canada press agents - that we are the _moral superpower_; and

•	We did go to Afghanistan, the second time, to *appease* the USA: that was Jean Chrétien’s *only* motivation.  He selected that mission, against the professional advice of his defence staff, because he was terrified that the US would start retaliating (economically) against Canada for its lack of support in the Middle East/West Asia operations.  Chrétien was doing a fine balancing act: Canadians, broadly and deeply, opposed the Iraq War – not because they understood it but because they detest George Bush and all his doings and they suspect (maybe correctly) that George Bush doesn’t quite understand what he’s doing in Iraq; but Canadians, almost universally, want all the benefits of free/open trade with the USA.  Chrétien reckoned he had to _”do something, even if it’s wrong”_ to secure a reasonably open Canada/US border with all that entails.  Troops to Afghanistan was, in his mind, a small price to pay.  Remember when then Minister McCallum was dashing of to Europe to beg the ISAF founders to make (highly visible) room for us, as ‘leaders’?  The 2nd Afghanistan deployment was a PR exercise and the ‘target’ was Washington.  Chrétien calculated (probably correctly) that Afghanistan would be ‘enough’ for the Americans and not ‘too much’ for reluctant Canadians.

We now face an essentially ignorant, misinformed and even _hostile_ (towards Gen. Hillier’s world-view) population, which, broadly, _likes_ a quiet, _passive_ (and cheap!) military, in blue berets.

Politicians are, must be, sensitive to what the people want – Chrétien was being remarkably, uncharacteristically open and honest when he told us, a few years back, that Canadians like the ‘_boy scout_ thing’ from their armed forces.

If we, in the military community, think differently then we have to help the small minority in government, academe, the media and the population at large to change the minds of the majority.  That’s why, going back to a comment from my friend Kirkhill a few days ago, I suggest we need to get behind more than just Gen. Hillier.  We Canadians – especially those of us not serving in the regular force – need to add our voices to all those which speak for sound, sensible Canadian foreign and defence policies – for a return, in other words to a time before Trudeau.

The case *for* Afghanistan is strong and clear – even as the case for Iraq was/is,  in my personal opinion weak and muddled.  But it is not _simple_; there are a lot of dots to join before Canadian’s _interests_ and troops in Afghanistan are, clearly, connected in the minds of Canadians, including in, especially, the minds of the lazy, inept, ignorant mainstream media against which I railed just above.  We can, and should, help all comers – even the media with which we, often, disagree or of which we disapprove.

Clear, reasoned argument are necessary to counter (not overwhelm or stamp-out) views with which we disagree.  Many of us disagree with Cannonfodder but that does not mean that he is wrong – it just means that we ‘see’ things differently.  Many of the points he makes are perfectly valid, maybe not as well expressed as I might wish, but valid, all the same; others are less so; and I, *personally*, am not persuaded that, taken together, they all add up to case _against_ our, Canadian, 10 or 20 year, mission in Afghanistan.

We need to persuade Canadians not silence them.

Edit: punctuation


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Mar 2006)

Pike said:
			
		

> ...
> First off, I personally believe that Canada should decide its own foreign policy,not be subject to the American foreign policy.
> 
> Afghanistan is NOT our priority, If anyone here can explain to me how fighting in Afghanistan enhances our national security I would love to hear it.
> ...



This is a letter to the editor in today’s _Globe and Mail_ from Senator Peter Stollery (see, _inter alia_: http://www.parl.gc.ca/36/2/parlbus/commbus/senate/Com-e/FORE-E/REP-E/rep07apr00-e.htm ) (it is reproduced here under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act):

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060307.LETTERS07-4/TPStory/Opinion/letters


> The Congo crisis
> 
> *SENATOR PETER STOLLERY*
> 
> ...



This takes us back to Pike’s original question: why is combat in Afghanistan more _valuable_ than humanitarian missions in Sudan or Congo or the gods only know where, next? (And which, as Sen. Stollery points out, only work when trained (Chinese, Indian & Pakistani) soldiers secure the area and allow e.g. CARE to operate).

Many, many Canadians are comfortable – maybe too comfortable – with the idea that these humanitarian missions are why they under-fund their military.  They feel good when they see Canadians helping people; they feel better when there are no tanks or fighter-bombers in the picture; they feel great when there is no need to bring defence spending up to 2% of GDP - $20+ billion per year, year-after-year, for decades to come.

Canadians will be asked to choose between:

1.	Much, much more money for DND (which must, perforce, come at the expense of something else (and most spending is either _social_ or _regional_) because new taxes should not be levied) to conduct both humanitarian and security operations; or

2.	Some more money for DND and another choice: security operations like Afghanistan or humanitarian operations like Sudan or Congo; or

3.	No significant new money for DND and a gradual wind-down to a point where we can only participate as very junior partners in some humanitarian missions.

I wonder how they will choose.  Is sometimes Army.ca contributor Steven Staples correct: was the Martin government and is the Harper government out of touch with Canadians?  Is the CF the people want and the one for which they are willing to pay a blue bereted band of busybodies, feeding the starving and wagging unarmed fingers at the ne’er do wells?


----------



## Journeyman (7 Mar 2006)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> SENATOR PETER STOLLERY
> Uruguay has a large force. China has soldiers. *There is not one Canadian*.



Perhaps nit-picking, but when the Senators did their "fact-finding tour" last October, there were eight Canadians; there are presently nine. I'm sure their families miss them more than Senator Stollery did.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/operations/Crocodile/index_e.asp
http://www.monuc.org/ContribMilit.aspx?lang=en&menuOpened=About%20MONUC

Gee, and surfing the 'net to find this was probably a lot less expensive than sending the unelected parliamentary rabble around the planet to find negative things to say about Canada


----------



## zipperhead_cop (7 Mar 2006)

As always, Edward makes an excellent point.  I fully support the efforts in A'stan, and would love to see our role and support expand.  But when you see opinion polls go to a dump because of a car accident and a cowardly ambush, we really have to wonder WTH do people want from the military?  Around here it's preaching to the choir, of course.  
Ultimately, it is going to hinge on media.  No one sees those rape hospitals or toddlers with severed arms.  The most anyone ever sees of the suffering is the care group commercials, and lets face it;  it's pretty easy to flip a channel on Sally Struthers.  
I believe if Canadians could have their collective heads shaken out of their collective assess, they would want us doing more.  As it stands right now, though, IMO, Canadians don't really have a reason to care about A'stan or any other place on the planet.  I don't get the sense that they really "get" the war on terror, and since so many media outlets have been pushing anti-American tripe, I have to imagine that people may be thinking in terms of "The US created this problem, they can sort it out".  Nice to see China, India and Pakistan stepping up, but where is the rest of the planet?  Why isn't the UN doing anything about this, and assigning more countries to help in these areas?  Is political correctness so globally rampant that it would be "impolite" to go into the Congo, shut it down and sort it out?  Seem we were ready to jet over there back in the mid '90's when it was Zaire (I was signed up for that one) so what happened?  
Funding for the military has been brutal for years (no news there) but some keen thinker is going to have to do a good PR campaign to get it off the ground.  A sustained media blitz of horrors around the globe, coupled with a sound bite or two from the CDS saying "we'd love to do something, but we can't afford to right now" should have people BEGGING their MP's to flog higher military budgets so we can get out there and do some good.  
As an aside, are there any other UN taskings going on right now that could be reasonably pulled out of to re-allocate resources?  I'm out of the loop on this one.


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 Mar 2006)

Edward, with support from a couple of others, has made the key points.

Canada's interests are not at stake merely because a particular state happens to be failed or weak.  For example, given nearly any particular African country, any group which installs itself as rulers has enough problems to occupy their time and has the potential mostly to only make life miserable for the citizens.

Canada's interests are at stake when a state is failed or weak and ruled by, or has the potential to be ruled by, someone willing and able to use the state's meagre resources to promote trouble abroad.  Afghanistan was, and could easily again be, such a country.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (8 Mar 2006)

Please post all replies to the Joining the dots or Why are we in Afghanistan Editorial here.


----------



## Quag (8 Mar 2006)

Just a quick note to everyone around the Ottawa area.  In today's (08 Mar) Ottawa Citizen there is a page full of letters to the editor basically tearing apart Jack Layton for his questioning of the Forces in Afghanistan.  I think it is refreshing to see the support of our country in black ink, and it serves as a reminder that we DO have the backing of the majority of our great country.

Regards


----------



## Michael Dorosh (8 Mar 2006)

> Afghanistan became a terrorist base because the national government was overthrown by Soviet aggression in 1973



Why does the article mention Soviet aggression in 1973?  I thought that was a bloodless internal coup, and the invasion by the Russians was in 1979?


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (8 Mar 2006)

I'm no historian, but wasn't Muhammad Daoud backed by the Soviets when he overthrew the king in 1973? Agreed, that's not aggression, more like subversion.


----------



## Guy. E (8 Mar 2006)

With the reading of the article, I think that it is almost pointless for people to argue why we should leave Afghanistan. Its all right there.


----------



## OnTrack (8 Mar 2006)

I think part of the perception problem here is that some of the public is having difficulty with the notion that "the Generals will dictate" (as headlined in my local medias rag) how long the A-stan mission lasts.  Fundamentally that is not how our democracy works.  Is it not the Generals, it is, ultimately, the people of Canada through their elected politicians who will decide.  No one that I know is in any way doubting the dedication, bravery or commitment of our forces to an exceptionally important mission.


----------



## Cloud Cover (8 Mar 2006)

OnTrack said:
			
		

> I think part of the perception problem here is that some of the public is having difficulty with the notion that "the Generals will dictate" (as headlined in my local medias rag) how long the A-stan mission lasts.  Fundamentally that is not how our democracy works.  Is it not the Generals, it is, ultimately, the people of Canada through their elected politicians who will decide.  No one that I know is in any way doubting the dedication, bravery or commitment of our forces to an exceptionally important mission.



Can't disagree with that. The real issue is with who created the impression and who currently has the most to gain by thriving on those perceptions. We have a few guys in Iraq who frequent these boards, I think they could speak quite well to how perceptions can be misguided or misapprehended to suit a political or other purpose, much to the detriment and peril of soldiers in theatre.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Mar 2006)

OnTrack said:
			
		

> I think part of the perception problem here is that some of the public is having difficulty with the notion that "the Generals will dictate" (as headlined in my local medias rag) how long the A-stan mission lasts.  Fundamentally that is not how our democracy works.  Is it not the Generals, it is, ultimately, the people of Canada through their elected politicians who will decide.  No one that I know is in any way doubting the dedication, bravery or commitment of our forces to an exceptionally important mission.



You may have noticed that it is Peter McKay who is doing most of the talking about our Troops in Afghanistan, not Gordon O'Connor.  There is a reason for that.  Once outside of Canada, CF Troops are getting their direction from Foreign Affairs, not the Minister of Defence.  The Minister of Defence (Note: Defence is not Offence/Offensive.) is responsible for the Defence of Canada.  As the Minister who is responsible for Defence, he adds to the confusion everytime he partakes in a photo op that may be construed as being with the Troops 'outside of Canada' as opposed as with the Troops period.  Kind of confusing, but simple if you look at the CF as having the CDS in charge of them, who is responsible to the Minister of Defence for Domestic Ops, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs for International Ops.  It is a little more complicated than that, buttttttt.......that is a whole different Topic.


----------



## Old Sweat (8 Mar 2006)

George,

I  may be nit-picking but the National Defence Act is clear that the only person who can give direction to the CF is the MND, and he must only deal with the CDS. Now, there are exceptions re administrative matters which usually come from the government through the DM, but he is acting for the MND.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (8 Mar 2006)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> George,
> 
> I  may be nit-picking but the National Defence Act is clear that the only person who can give direction to the CF is the MND, and he must only deal with the CDS. Now, there are exceptions re administrative matters which usually come from the government through the DM, but he is acting for the MND.



NDA states that the Treasury Board is also permitted to give direction, albeit only concerning pay and allowances. Just to thoroughly and irrelevantly pick the nit!


----------



## Guy. E (8 Mar 2006)

So... If theres anything that the PM wants the military to do, he talks to the CDS and he tells the military what to do?


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Mar 2006)

The NDA says:
----------
4. The Minister holds office during pleasure, has the management and direction of the Canadian Forces and of all matters relating to national defence and is responsible for

(a) the construction and ...

12. (1) The Governor in Council may make regulations for the organization, training, discipline, efficiency, administration and good government of the Canadian Forces and generally for carrying the purposes and provisions of this Act into effect.

(2) Subject to section 13 and any regulations made by the Governor in Council, the Minister may make regulations for the organization, training, discipline, efficiency, administration and good government of the Canadian Forces and generally for carrying the purposes and provisions of this Act into effect.

18 ...

(2) Unless the Governor in Council otherwise directs, all orders and instructions to the Canadian Forces that are required to give effect to the decisions and to carry out the directions of the Government of Canada or the Minister shall be issued by or through the Chief of the Defence Staff.

R.S., c. N-4, s. 18.
----------
"Governor in Council' = cabinet (the cabinet is, officially, the _Committee of the Queen's Privy Council_).

These are Her Majesty's forces - not the government's forces - that means they belong to the people of Canada.  The people (the Crown) *delegates* management and operational authority to the Governor in Council (the cabinet).


----------



## warrickdll (9 Mar 2006)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> _Quote from: RangerRay on 2006-03-03, 08:34:53
> Pike has been known to troll conservative boards with this dreck in the past._
> 
> Such as? Do you have URL's handy? [not sarcasm, serious inquiry]



I wouldn't bother, this isn't what most people think it is, though you were close here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/40500/post-344552/topicseen.html#msg344552


> Oh, so Pike is guilty of self-serving marketting, readily confirmed by the posting history highlighted by George, above.



This is a form of advertising, plain and simple. Expect this advertising tactic to change slightly with an unknown new person starting a topic and then, a few posts in, you will see the same, pre-formatted, company approved pitch to go to the website (the unknown person is just part of this form of advertising).

Here is Pike at w-w.freedominion.ca


> Posted: 02/ 22/ 06 6:43 pm    Post subject: Tougher sentances are ineffective
> Mandatory minimum sentences are seductive to citizens unfamiliar with the complexities of crime, and to politicians who want to be seen by those citizens as taking action to protect them. But crime rates are actually declining, and if putting more people in prison for longer and certain periods of time really could make us safer, then our neighbours south of the border would be living in the safest country in the world.
> w-w.breakthesilence.ca/politics/Feb%2006/toughsentance.htm
> 
> Please read the full story before responding, as it is important to your knowledge of the issue,




Breakthesilence at fudforum.org


> Should the US give control of the dot.coms to the UN? [message #28866] Mon, 14 November 2005 01:39
> Breakthesilence
> Messages: 1
> Registered: October 2005
> ...



Pike at forum.ogrish.com


> Pike12-08-2005, 05:26 PM
> w-w.breakthesilence.ca/politics/oct05/AthiestsPol.htm
> Lets get some SENSE back into politics and make decisions based on RATIONALITY
> Has anything in the bible ever been rationally explained?



Breakthesilence at forums.beyond.ca


> Should Hamas be given a chance?
> 
> Breakthesilence
> The new government in Ottawa must not outright reject a working relationship with the new Hamas-led government in Ramallah. By respecting the democratic wishes of the Palestinian people, Ottawa can facilitate the evolution of Hamas from an armed group to a mainstream political party. Should Canada give Hamas a chance?
> Hamas: Give them a chance? w-w.breakthesilence.ca/politics/January2005/hamas.htm




This is a very brief list from doing a search for Breakthesilence. This kind of forum spamming is a plague.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (9 Mar 2006)

Brutal.  
If you go to her website, it is all but dead and stagnant.  There are only about four active posters Pike, some clown that is an advocate for the Libertarian party (serious pack of kooks) and a white supremist, and, sadly, the ones I threw up (I feel so dirty).  Most of the posts are over a month old and there are only about 50 members signed up.  
Blatant attempts to get the webcounter stats up in order to push for advertising space.  Don't get sucked in.


----------



## manhole (9 Mar 2006)

the editorial says it all.   I am wondering if there will ever be a time when the majority of Canadians will realize that it can be a very nasty world out there and that you cannot negotiate a solution to every problem.   Sometimes you have to "carry a big stick" for the overall good.   Our troops do their job superbly and we mourn every loss however they are there doing the job they are trained to do and are making our world a little safer in doing so.   Well done guys and gals!!!   Ubique


----------



## MarkOttawa (9 Mar 2006)

A related and excellent March 9 post at _The Torch_:
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/

_Whether you like it or not, our presence in Afghanistan is fully justified._
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/03/whether-you-like-it-or-not-our.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## couchcommander (9 Mar 2006)

Mike Bobbitt said:
			
		

> I'm no historian, but wasn't Muhammad Daoud backed by the Soviets when he overthrew the king in 1973? Agreed, that's not aggression, more like subversion.



Hey Mr. Bobbitt,

As per our discussion, I am not entirely certain of this. I can't say I've heard it mentioned before, and the few survey books I have lying around don't mention it either. I took the time to look at a few journal articles, notably The Fall of the Afghan Monarchy in 1973, by Hasan Kakar, and Soviet Military Intervention in Afghanistan: Roots & Causes, by Minton F. Goldman, and these don't mention it either. Once again though, these sources and my own experience are far from definitive, especially given that these articles are pre-breakup. 

In terms of a date we can use ('78 or '79), Goldman goes so far as to assert "There is no evidence that the Soviets had instigated or engineered Daoud's removal"... putting our intervention date all the way back to 1979, but that as well is depending on your perspective, as the USSR created and funded the Afghan communist party (PDPA) that eventually split up, with the Khalq faction overthrowing Daoud. 

*edited for clarity*


----------



## a_majoor (9 Mar 2006)

While the historical background may be interesting from an intellectual challenge point of view, there is neither a USSR to demand repatriations from nor a functioning Afghan Royal Family ready, willing and able to take the reigns of a monarchy (constitutional or otherwise). I'm afraid I'm not currently avaiable either.

We should look at the past to see the hows and whys, but if there is no good solution that can be rooted in the past, then we need to let it go and look ahead at what we need to do now, tomorrow, in 2015 and the big homecoming parade in 2025 to achieve our goals.


----------



## couchcommander (10 Mar 2006)

a_majoor,

My post was just a reply to Michael Dorosh's and Mr. Bobbitt's discussion regarding the date of the Soviet aggression in Afghanistan mentioned in the article.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Mar 2006)

Hey, I am a libertarian! (well, not a card carrying one, but still)

The "problem" with people like Pike is they are only able to digest pre chewed, preformatted "slogans". This is a result of many factors, poor education, laziness, a rigid personality unable to deal with conflicting data, peer pressure, lack of life experience and so on. Some of these factors are way beyond our control, the jiffy pop hat crowd can't be reasoned with. (I once pointed out the "Afghanistan pipeline" so popular among the "Blood for Oil" crowd would be pumping uphill over the Himalaya mountains, with some peaks over 9 km above sea level. There was a brief silence, followed by another reason the war was about oil. Oh well....)

We can make our arguments, lay out the case step by step, debate amongst ourselves to reach a consensus (i.e. this is a "Clash of Civilizations or the "Core" seeking to integrate the "Gap"), educate the poorly educated, help those lacking in exoerience broaden their frames of reference and maybe inspiring some to climb out of their intellectual ruts  and find out things on their own. 

OK, this is a pipe dream, but if we don't make the effort, who will? If people decide that watching "American Idol" takes precidence over their lives and long term security, there will be a terrible price to pay in the end.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Mar 2006)

The _Globe and Mail’s_ resident left wing-nut weighs in today,  His column is reproduced here under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060310.wxcosalutin10/BNStory/National/home


> Trust the public on Afghanistan
> 
> *RICK SALUTIN*
> 
> ...



First, let me say that I agree with his first and (most of) his second paragraphs.  It is entirely likely that the _media_ – which Salutin and Hillary Clinton seem to regard as a vast, right wing conspiracy aimed at toppling Saint Tommy Douglas’ _New Jerusalem_ – manipulates the news or, more likely in my view, just gets it muddled.  Ordinary Canadians, like most of us here on Army.ca, do watch, read, listen, think and discuss (I hope most (many? just some?) of us think before we discuss) and then we ordinary Canadians make up our own minds.  Salutin is right there; but he assumes – wholly, completely and predictably incorrectly – that we ordinary Canadians will, after thinking, end up opposing our Afghanistan mission.  Some will; many will not.  We will talk amongst ourselves – maybe those who believe we are doing the right thing for (at last) the right reasons will convince some of the weak-kneed nay-sayers, too.

(Parenthetically: I also agree with part of this: _”… [we] may also be suspicious of the idiotically named "war on terror," …”_  The key words are idiotically named.  We are not, I hope, at war with terror.  We have used terror as a weapon, and may – likely will – do so again; we have decorated _terrorists_.  What do people think Churchill meant when he said “Set Europe ablaze!” was he planning a birthday party?  He wanted his forces, mostly SOE – in which many Canadian military personnel served, out of uniform – to *terrorize* the Germans and the collaborators.  We are at war with some groups (I call them _movements_) which use terror as a tactic.  A war on terror is a dumb idea; it’s like Pink Lloyd Axworthy’s wars on landmines or small arms: dumb ideas propagated by dumb people. <end rant>)

I object to Salutin’s cheap cracks at senior CF officers – serving and retired – including the one who _”… writes scholarly polemics using dubious concepts like failed states.”_

Is Salutin afraid of the competition?

Is he amazed that generals, unlike some journalists, can walk and chew gum?


Edit: typo & to insert hyperlink as required by Army.ca's regulations


----------



## George Wallace (10 Mar 2006)

Having read that Globe article, I am upset at the idiot.  I will call him an idiot, with a small "i", as he obviously is.  He has called down a great number of his profession to the lowest:


> ......... And it is misleading for journalists like Marcus Gee to reverse the order and say, "With casualties on the rise, polls show that support for the Afghanistan mission is falling."
> 
> It's also insulting. ......


How not to win over Friends and Colleagues.

I found his words insulting, but I guess that is what he is going for.  He must be looking for a Free Lance job at the National Enquirer.  One would expect a 'Journalist' to try and print some facts and not innuendo.


----------



## vonGarvin (10 Mar 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> OK, this is a pipe dream


LOL.  "pipe dream".  "blood for oil".  "piplelines in Afghanistan"  Get it? ;D


----------



## Hollywog (10 Mar 2006)

First I hope everyone I know there comes back safe.


However this seems low.

3 months ago these statements were not even on the radar now we have a new PM and they are all over the place and he hasn't been on the job 2 months?

I don't think had Martin won the election that it would have been a factor.

Our comitment shouldn't be based on political pursuasion of the PM.  

And far fewer Canadians die in Afghanistan than Winnipeg should we withdraw from murderpeg too?


----------



## GAP (10 Mar 2006)

Having served in Viet Nam and presently having a son over in Afghanistan, I would like to point out some items. 

To the Canadians who have never been in any of the third world countries...you don't have a clue. You live a privilaged life with no strife, other than what is self inflicted, you have a standard of living that ensures you food, safety and shelter (IF you desire, or NOT if you desire) that the rest of the world can only envy. 

When I joined the USMC as a Canadian, I fought with some terrific and proud men who not only were doing their duty, but preformed in a selfless manner anyone would be proud of.
They (the media) shouldn't diss the military fighting man because of what their political masters say and do..they don't deserve it. 

As for my son serving in Afghanistan (previously Bosnia/Kabul/others) ... if not the HAVES helping the HAVE NOT'S, then WHO??? Yeah, some of the politics stink, but not everything can be as clean and sanitary as you would like. Wouldn't it be nice to see that the only political issue in a country like Afghanistan be over whether one politician said something nasty about another politician. 

They sure would, and that's the eventual end result we would like to see...people arguing and voting for changes that effect their lives....hmmm..kinda like Canada?? (as I see so often:   end rant)


----------



## a_majoor (10 Mar 2006)

The really unfortunate thing is Jack Layton really cares little for the men and women of the CF, and apparently even less for the people of Afghanistan. *His silence on the matter between 2002 and now is proof enough.*

Like the "ethics comissioner" suddenly coming out to investigate Prime Minister Harper (after several years of collecting a paycheque under Mr Creitien and Martin and sitting quietly in his office), this is simply low and sleazy partisan politics in action.

Take the time from your busy schedules and let Mr Layton know.


----------



## Armymedic (11 Mar 2006)

If you are speaking to someone about Afghanistan and they say they are against having our troops there, here is some points you can argue with:

Tell them if they are against having troops in Afghanistan then they are against defending womens rights. Tell them they are against free speech, tell them they are against freedom of choice.

If it is a woman you are speaking to, ask her:
Do you think women should be educated? Do you have a job, do you have any female children, do you like being able to go out of the house without a male escort?

I am sure she will say yes to one of those questions, then tell her she is in favour us having soldiers there because if we take our troops out, and the Taliban return to power, they will once again put in laws that:

Women must be completely covered....or they will be beaten,
Women must be escorted by a male member of the family everywhere outside the home, and not talk to another male.....or the escort will be beheaded,
Girls are not allowed to be educated...or they be beaten and then would be sold off at public auction,
Women are not allowed to have a job....or they will be beheaded,
If the all the males of a family die, then the women starve to death.

To speak out would cause you to be beaten, to listen to music would get you beaten, to help another mans wife would get you beheaded.

Then after you explain all this, ask them again are they in favour of our troops helping to create a western style moderate Islamic government in Afghanistan. I am sure at this point they might be.


----------



## raymao (14 Mar 2006)

From the Toronto Star:

Doubts at home hit troops
Soldiers stand by Afghan mission 
PM's tough talk `means a lot to us'
Mar. 14, 2006. 11:13 AM
SUSAN DELACOURT
OTTAWA BUREAU CHIEF


KANDAHAR, Afghanistan—They are thousands of kilometres away from home, but not that far from the politics of their mission. 

In the tent barracks of the Kandahar military base, on the rocky, dusty roads where they stroll with high-powered weapons strapped across their shoulder, Canada's troops in Afghanistan know Prime Minister Stephen Harper's visit this week had as much to do with domestic politics as international security. 

There were no great cheers or rounds of applause for Harper as he stood before the troops on the base yesterday to tell them Canada was not about to "cut and run" from its Afghanistan commitment, as some critics might prefer.

But many did flock to Harper afterward for pictures or a private word. 

Cpl. John Fingal, originally from Oshawa, was one of them. He was happy to see the Prime Minister on the base, precisely because of what he's been hearing from Canada.

"It means a lot, that his government actually supports us. Some statistics show that a lot of Canadians don't support us, but as long as we have the actual government itself it really means a lot to us," Fingal said. 

Asked what he'd tell Canadian critics and doubters, Fingal talked about a friend who lived in New York when the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist strikes hit that city — about the fact that violence and dissent thousands of kilometres away can have a way of creeping up on Canadians. 

"I want to tell them that they should realize that the threat isn't just to Americans or to Afghans. ... You can't hide from this threat," he said. 

Inside the surprisingly well-appointed quarters known as B.A.T. (the "big-ass tent), in the minutes before Harper was due to arrive for a tour, Canadian soldiers were tidying military bunks laid out with Afghan carpets and warm, homey touches. 

Back in the far reaches of the tent, a boardroom of sorts was outfitted with military plans and administrative flotsam and jetsam. On the big square table were carefully chosen computer printouts of news stories over the past month about the political debate over the Canadian mission abroad. The sheaves of paper looked well-thumbed. 

Cpl. Pascal Johanny acknowledged some frustration with suggestions Canada needs another parliamentary debate on the commitment to Afghanistan. All three opposition parties are demanding a formal discussion in the House of Commons on the military mission, an idea Harper rejects. 

"I believe the debate should be over with," Johanny said. "Now the Conservatives are in power, the decision has been made to send the troops out here and I think they should stop trying to debate stuff like that and just support the troops." 

Johanny believed Harper's visit could do nothing but help in that effort.

"Since it comes from the highest part of the government, maybe more people who obviously voted him in will start listening," he said. 

Cpl. Ron Barr said the troops pay a lot of attention to how they're perceived in Canada and positive reaction, mere support is gratifying. 

But like many others, Barr talks about how this mission is motivated by a desire to help the Afghan people, not to curry favour or attention back home. 

What would he say to those who wanted to question the mission? 

"I think they should send all the people (who doubt us) on a tour of the place," Barr said.

"Then they could see firsthand, they could see with their own eyes, what we're doing for the people, and how the small factions are trying to disrupt everybody's day-to-day life. ... I think we spend too much money on debates, too much money on Crown investigations into this and that, and I just think we shouldn't have another debate."


----------



## TCBF (15 Mar 2006)

http://www.breakthesilence.ca/

I realize Pike is no longer with us, so I decided to check out the above Pikesite, and lo and behold, there may be some views held there by BOTH sides of the political spectrum.  Now, Pike herself may have fallen victim to her inability to multitask WAVT maintaining thread presence, but, had she done more than a few 'drive-bys' here, she may have in fact stuck around and learned something.

A lost opportunity for her.  Maybe even for us, but certainly for her.

Tom


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 Mar 2006)

>Tell them if they are against having troops in Afghanistan then they are against...

That's not true.  At most you can claim they are willing to pass up an opportunity to promote something (eg. human rights).  There are plenty of places around the world we could work to improve things, but we don't (and indeed, we can't).  That doesn't mean we are against whatever we have passed up the opportunity to improve.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (15 Mar 2006)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Tell them if they are against having troops in Afghanistan then they are against...
> 
> That's not true.  At most you can claim they are willing to pass up an opportunity to promote something (eg. human rights).  There are plenty of places around the world we could work to improve things, but we don't (and indeed, we can't).  That doesn't mean we are against whatever we have passed up the opportunity to improve.



I'm sure in time the nations that care will get around to the nations that need.  As it stands, how many irons in the fire can we maintain with the current budget and staffing levels.  Lets get A'stan sewn up first, then start to look for a new worthy recipient.  I would love to see some other wealthy European country, say France or Germany, step up and send a significant troop deployment to some backward crap hole like Algeria,  Sudan or Congo.  I don't see why it has to be Castle North America and the other Commonwealth countries doing it all.  (of course, I am a product of our media on this, so there may be a great many other countries working as such, we just don't get to hear about them.  
The argument against A'stan sounds the same as the one against the Americans in Iraq:  Didn't ask for help, can't ever hope to get the job done, imposing our values, not worth the risk (I choose to ignore the "blood for oil crap).  I hope they have so little access to media over there they don't see what a self absorbed nation of back turners we can be.  Leaving A'stan will only confirm that if they have any thoughts as such.  
I was approached by a woman looking for directions a couple of days ago.  Her English was halting, but we were able to talk.  She was a Christian that had left Iraq during GW 1, and had been in Canada since.  I asked her what she thought about the American involvement in her home, and she told me "America is from God.  I pray for George Bush every night.  They save the Iraq people and are friends to the Iraq people".  She went on to indicate that she knew that the killing and destruction was being stirred up by agitators from outside of Iraq.   What I would have given to be able to throw her on camera to say "here, this is why we go to foreign nations and put our asses on the line".  Chances are, it would have never made it to air.  

If our cultures are so dispatirate and we are foisting so much "ethnocentricity" on them, why do we end up with so many as refugee's from those countries we have helped?  Maybe our deeds make more of a statement than our words, and for the little guy on the street, that is what mattered.  All they see is a guy with a red and white flag on his uniform, putting his life on the line for a place he had never been to and will likely never go back, and figures "this country the soldier is from.  It must be a really great place to live and raise a family".  Throwing around money and sanctions will never generate that kind of good will.  An increased budget will never replace word of mouth and good example as being a way to convince a nation that they have a friend they can count on.  

Pulling out of Afghanistan now would at best be short sighted, and at worst a cruel abandonment of a people who need us.


----------



## GO!!! (15 Mar 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> *Pulling out of Afghanistan now would at best be short sighted, and at worst a cruel abandonment of a people who need us.*



+1

Best line yet!


----------



## goldorak (15 Mar 2006)

I was questionning myself why we are in Afghanistan... but to do son, i have to answer first by why we were in Bosnia, or haiti, or any other contries before. Because the canadian army is one of the best army in the world. Ok, we are not as equipped as other armies (ie americans) But we are canadians. I'm with every soldier over ther and i hope they will return save. I'm pround of you guys!


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (18 Mar 2006)

Its amazing to see fellow Canadians taking a stand on why we should leave Afghanistan based on little or wrong information. To me the whole situation can be compared to a school yard and a bully. The bully has been running the yard for years preying on the weak and getting fat off their milk money and suddenly that a few other kids decided to stand up to him.

 The Afghanistan government and people(from what I've seen) want us there to restore some sense of order so they can try to normalize their lives after decades of war. IMHO the only ones that don't want us there are the ones that got rich off of terrorizing their fellow countrymen.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Mar 2006)

Here is an _Issues_ (opinion) piece by Jonathan Kay from today’s _National Post_; it is reproduced here under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=8566c8bc-4fb9-4d1d-98f1-3cad832a5108&p=2 


> Preparing for a Black Hawk Down moment
> 
> Jonathan Kay
> National Post
> ...



I agree with Kay that:

•	The political _left_ (near and far/loony) in Canada is so wrapped up in its all consuming hatred (no better word) of George W Bush that it cannot see the humanitarian utility, much less the strategic necessity, of the Afghanistan mission;

•	One tragic loss of life could be a tipping point for Canadians who have been brainwashed by a biased, muddle headed, inept, lazy media (which serves, by and large, as stenographers for the Liberal Party of Canada’s Trudeau wing and the NDP) into believing that baby blue berets are the key to our national security and the future of the West; and

•	Harper must “lay the groundwork” to begin the long, hard process of educating Canadians.

While I agree that parliament should debate the Afghan deployment – if only to flush out the loony left, I am constantly dismayed (or, perhaps, reassured about the essential ignorance of my fellow citizens) by the lack of comprehension of our Constitution amongst those who want a vote on it.

Parliament has neither a _right_ nor a need to _approve_ the deployment of troops.

In 1939 King demanded such a debate for totally political and (Constitutionally) quite, unnecessary reasons.  Parliament’s *right* is to vote or deny the money to make war or keep the peace – which it does, year-after-year, when the _estimates_ (the _blue book_) are tabled.  This is the _right_ which we affirmed some 350+ years ago at Whitehall when we (the people) lopped off King Charles’ head.  The _sovereignty_ of Parliament was established, for ever, but it did not alter the basic nature of the state.  We remain a monarchy and it is the Queen’s right and duty to deploy her armies and navies to defend her realm and to promote her interests.  Parliament’s _choice_ is to vote funds, or not.  It is a hugely powerful choice.

Now, lazy parliamentarians and crafty bureaucrats have conspired to deal with the appropriations as one ‘whole’ – there is no valid Constitutional requirement to do that.  In fact, estimates should be debated (as they are, in Committee) and then voted on department-by-department, if not (always) line-by-line.  It should be possible, in other words, for parliamentarians to vote money for e.g. DND’s personnel (Vote 1) and equipment (Vote 5) budgets but to deny the money in the operations and maintenance ‘vote’ (also in Vote 5) thereby, effectively and Constitutionally, denying the crown the _right_ to conduct certain military operations.  That is the _proper_ role of parliament in our (Westminster) form of a constitutional monarchy.  *But that’s beside the point.*


----------



## SeaKingTacco (20 Mar 2006)

Edward-

+2, Sir.  Very well done!

Cheers


----------



## raymao (22 Mar 2006)

I posted this on a couple other threads since there are more than one running with a similar topic.

I'm currently writing a paper for my public adm. class. I chose Canadians in Afghanistan as my topic, please read and make comments.


----------



## GO!!! (22 Mar 2006)

raymao,

I'd start this in a seperate thread, just to keep responses to your essay seperate from the issues surrounding Pike.

That's what I do!!


----------



## Journeyman (22 Mar 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> I'd start this in a seperate thread, just to keep responses to your essay seperate from the issues surrounding Pike.


That way you avoid the confusion of you thinking we're trashing your paper, when we're actually trashing Pike .....or viceversa  >

  <---- 'cause I know academics can be sensitive


----------



## raymao (22 Mar 2006)

Thanks guys. New topic is posted.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (23 Mar 2006)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> This is a letter to the editor in today’s _Globe and Mail_ from Senator Peter Stollery (see, _inter alia_: http://www.parl.gc.ca/36/2/parlbus/commbus/senate/Com-e/FORE-E/REP-E/rep07apr00-e.htm ) (it is reproduced here under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act):
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060307.LETTERS07-4/TPStory/Opinion/letters
> This takes us back to Pike’s original question: why is combat in Afghanistan more _valuable_ than humanitarian missions in Sudan or Congo or the gods only know where, next? (And which, as Sen. Stollery points out, only work when trained (Chinese, Indian & Pakistani) soldiers secure the area and allow e.g. CARE to operate).


      My father and uncle were with RC57 Congo during the last UN lead debacle in the Congo.  While the myth of peacekeeping may have held up at home, for the troops on the sharp end when sides shifted and alliances broke down it was a war, and an ugly one. Reading the reports on Somalia and Rwanda none of the soldiers in the family were particularly surprised.  Do we want another mission run by the UN in Africa where our objectives are unrealistic, our troop levels are too small, or composed of ill disciplined poorly prepared troops, our ROE's are more restrictive than a playground teacher's, and leadership provided by third world civilian UN authorities whose political systems generate bluster rather than decisiveness?  Sounds like fun, but don't ask me to volunteer.  I know how it turns out.
     Afghanistan is a NATO operation, with clearly defined mission parameters, professional leadership, first rate troops with proven ability to operate jointly.  Given clear goals, good troops, ROE that are easily understood and workable, I expect the mission will succeed, and the troops that come back will be able to balance the heavy memories with the sense of accomplishment; what they did mattered and made a difference.  Not like a lot of UN missions, where the troops know that they could have made a real difference, but were not permitted to.  We've done a lot of good under the blue berets, but there are a lot of good troops out there who came back frustrated that they had the skills and training to make a difference, but not the UN support.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Mar 2006)

I agree that the UN is increasingly unable to plan and conduct anything like an effective, much less efficient operation.  That doesn’t mean that _someone_ shouldn’t do _something_ about Sudan and Congo, and, and, and, _ad infinitum_.

If people like Pike and her _fellow travelers_ really do care about anything other than slagging George Bush – care about anything Canadian, in other words – then they would recommend that we double the defence budget over the next five years and then play a lead role, by forming our own _coalitions of the willing_ to do what the UN cannot: *help the people of Africa*.

Happily, for the tax-payers and/or all the other government programmes, people like Pike and Judy Rebbic (sic?) and Maude Barlow don’t think (and really don't _care_, either), so we needn’t worry about that.

For the rest of us: Africa is a pity, maybe even a tragedy but it is not a matter of vital importance for Canada.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (23 Mar 2006)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> I agree that the UN is increasingly unable to plan and conduct anything like an effective, much less efficient operation.  That doesn’t mean that _someone_ shouldn’t do _something_ about Sudan and Congo, and, and, and, _ad infinitum_.
> 
> If people like Pike and her _fellow travelers_ really do care about anything other than slagging George Bush – care about anything Canadian, in other words – then they would recommend that we double the defence budget over the next five years and then play a lead role, by forming our own _coalitions of the willing_ to do what the UN cannot: *help the people of Africa*.
> 
> ...


      If Canada wishes to make a difference, then forming our own coalitions is the way to go.  Can Canada do it alone?  No.  Can Canada, Denmark, Holland, and Ireland (to pick a few minor players who could jointly do the job) put together a mission that was big enough, good enough, and sustainable enough to finish the job.  Yes.  Can the UN help, yes, its organizations can provide a framework to help rebuild.  Can the UN lead it?  No, its a spent force, with all the effective decision making ability of an amoeba.


----------



## Journeyman (23 Mar 2006)

mainerjohnthomas said:
			
		

> Can Canada, Denmark, Holland, and Ireland (to pick a few minor players who could jointly do the job)...


You'd have to ensure that such a coalition had both the firepower and staying-power to do the job. 

Current, and likely future, post-combat stability missions are going to require a degree of combat power, and a willingness to use it. Without this, all the other aspects of nation-building are likely to fail. I'd want to add a few more medium- to large-sized players to any coalition....with robust rules of engagement. 

There would also have to be a strong domestic consensus, so that the mission doesn't disintegrate following homefront or in-theatre violence (eg - Spain withdrawing from Ops following Madrid bombing).


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Mar 2006)

The other problem is that any 'coalition of the willing' must have a strong, global *reach* - which means the capability to get anywhere in the world with the firepower and then having enough of the 'staying power' (morale and materiel) to get the job done, however long it may take.

Very, very few countries have that global reach; it may be that fewer still have all the required staying power.


----------



## BernieSonSoonIn (24 Mar 2006)

Amen. Canada is a responsible and leading nation and we must continue our leading role. Canada is #1 . Go Canada.
To all the fine young men and women who make up our Armed Forces, Bless you all. Thank you.


----------



## big bad john (17 May 2006)

http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060517/nato_afghan_060517

NATO asks Canada to lead in Afghanistan: report 
CTV.ca News Staff

NATO wants Canada to take over command of the entire Afghan mission in 2008, a senior government official has told The Globe and Mail.

The Globe says the request, as well as a NATO meeting scheduled for next week, is behind the government's sudden decision to hold a vote tonight on whether to extend Canada's mission in Afghanistan by two more years.

After weeks of hounding the government for a clear indication of how long the troops would be in the region, opposition parties finally agreed to the six-hour debate and a vote for Wednesday.

New Democrats meanwhile have decided not to support extension of the mission, while the Liberals and Bloc Quebecois, caught by surprise when Conservative House leader Rob Nicholson approached them with a request for the vote, remain undecided.

"We will not be supporting the new mission that's being proposed by the Conservatives," Layton told reporters following an emergency caucus meeting late Tuesday. 

The Liberals also met Tuesday evening to discuss the issue but were not expected to reach a consensus until their regular caucus meeting Wednesday, if at all.

Some Liberal MPs were angry about being rushed into making a decision with little information and few seemed disposed to support the motion.

"It's a serious issue, you don't debate sending people into harms way for two more years at 36 hours notice," Liberal defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh told CTV's Canada AM Wednesday.

Even Michael Ignatieff, one of the front runners for the Liberal leadership and one of the more bullish supporters of the Afghanistan mission, sounded a note of caution.

"I don't want blank cheques here. This is a serious matter. Canadians are getting shot at," he told reporters on his way into the caucus meeting Tuesday.

Ignatieff said he wants to know how many troops would be involved and what their strategic objective would be.

"Before I vote for anything I want to know what I'm voting for."

Close vote

CTV's Ottawa bureau chief Robert Fife told AM it was "going to be a very close vote." 

"The big news is that the Liberals, who decided to send the troops to Afghanistan in the first place, will switch sides and vote against extending the mission tonight."

Meanwhile, an Ottawa-based think tank attacked the federal government Wednesday for spending what it estimated as $4.1 billion on its Afghan operations since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

Steven Staples, of the Polaris Institute, told an Ottawa news conference that Afghanistan accounts for 68 per cent of the $6.1 billion spent on international missions between the fall of 2001 and March 2006.

"The military mission is consuming all available resources, preventing resources elsewhere ... such as Darfur," Staples said.

Once a top ten contributor, Canada now ranks 50th out of 95 countries currently contributing military personnel to UN missions, Staples added.

Canada has around 2,300 soldiers in Afghanistan, with most stationed at Kandahar Airfield on a mission that is scheduled to end in February 2007.

The Conservative motion to extend the mission to February 2009 reads: "This House support the government's two-year extension of Canada's diplomatic, development, civilian police and military personnel in Afghanistan and the provision of funding and equipment for this extension."

Regular parliamentary business will be put on hold today during the six-hour debate, followed by the vote. 

If the motion fails to pass, Prime Minister Stephen Harper would be honour-bound not to extend the deployment during this mandate.

Fifteen Canadian soldiers and one Canadian diplomat have been killed in Afghanistan since 2002.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (17 May 2006)

Ah you beat me to it.

IF we do stay and do take over what does it mean for us?


----------



## Bograt (17 May 2006)

big bad john said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, an Ottawa-based think tank attacked the federal government Wednesday for spending what it estimated as $4.1 billion on its Afghan operations since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
> 
> Steven Staples, of the Polaris Institute, told an Ottawa news conference that Afghanistan accounts for 68 per cent of the $6.1 billion spent on international missions between the fall of 2001 and March 2006.
> 
> "The military mission is consuming all available resources, preventing resources elsewhere ... such as Darfur," Staples said.



Silly question: Can someone explain to me how this think thank generates revenue to pay for their lights- or are they continually in the dark? 

<sarcasm on>
Fortunately the genocide in Darfur has only started to materialize this past week. Perhaps the international community can nip this one in the bud. I'm sure if the Liberals were in power when this occurred, Canada would have stumbled over themselves sending troops.
<sarcasm off>


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (17 May 2006)

Army.ca and Steve Staples don't get along really.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (18 May 2006)

Maybe its time to "release the hounds" (insert best Mr Burns voice here)


----------



## KevinB (18 May 2006)

IIRC Stephen Staples is a member here --

However his view of the world (in my humble opinion) is clouded.  

I personally am against ISAF getting a larger mandate -- as I am sure all members who have experience with OEF/ISAF...

There seems to be a large "hand wringer" population in NATO these days and unless ISAF is lead by a Canadian, British or American leader it will turn into a larger version of the Kabul police force that ISAF has become...

The mission has to be to agressively pursue and destoy the Taliban, Drug Producers and Warlords (often all three are one in the same these days).  This in turn allows the NGO and Gov't aid missions the safety and security that allows them to do their jobs and provide relief to the Afghani population.

*But what do I know I only live here  :


----------



## pbi (18 May 2006)

To a certain extent I share KevinB's concern: my experiences with ISAF (ISAF VI=Eurocorps and friends) didn't leave me with any faith that that organization can do anything other than very basic local security (concentrated mainly on its own force protection.) Hunkering down in heavily fortified camps will achieve nothing, and while it might reduce NATO (and Canadian) casualties, will not deter any attacks on the Afghans themselves, or reduce the Taliban's freedom of movement. But, if an ISAF force was given dynamic professional leadership and a strong backbone of capable troops, it could do well, as ISAF V under Gen Hiller proved. Still, I can never see it equalling the capability of OEF unless the "rainbow club" membership is kept down to a few competent players.

Cheers

PS: Just what did else we expect from the Polaris Institute, anyway? No agenda there!... :


----------



## paracowboy (18 May 2006)

Polaris Institute = Fifth Column.  :

ISAF = Eurotourists

NATO = safe and secure Afghanistan.

paracowboy = mondo cool


----------



## Bograt (18 May 2006)

KevinB said:
			
		

> IIRC Stephen Staples is a member here --



You are correct. http://forums.army.ca/forums/members/12834


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (18 May 2006)

If you look at their efforts under Staples, the Polaris Institute has become a dedicated anti-Military advocacy group, and he is spending more-and-more time on TV promoting their very distorted world view.

The thing I very much dislike about the guy is his willingness to complain about the status-quo but his aversion to talk to about his recommended alternative course of action.



Matthew.


----------



## Bert (18 May 2006)

Stratfor makes note of Canadian and Taliban activies in southern Afghanistan:

Afghanistan's Mean Season: The Taliban Take on the Canadians
www.stratfor.com

Fierce fighting continued May 18 in southern Afghanistan's Kandahar province as British, Canadian and Afghan forces engaged hundreds of Taliban fighters near the village of Azizi. In neighboring Helmand province, Taliban fighters overran the town of Musa Qala, a former Taliban stronghold, only to be forced out later by Afghan troops backed by British and Canadian helicopter gunships. The fighting came a day after a Canadian offensive in Kandahar's Panjway district ended in the death of at least 18 Taliban and one Canadian soldier, while a suicide bomber struck a U.N. convoy, killing only the bomber. In the two days of fighting, some 50 Taliban have died, compared with about 14 Afghan and coalition fatalities.

The fighting reflects an overall increase in Taliban activity in southern Afghanistan since late 2005 -- the result of al Qaeda's reinvestment in the country and the change in coalition forces there. 

The United States has turned responsibility for most of Afghanistan over to NATO forces in order to free up U.S. troops to concentrate on operations in eastern Afghanistan, near the Pakistani border, where the Taliban and al Qaeda are most active -- and where many senior leaders are believed to be operating. Al Qaeda does not have as heavy a presence in southern Afghanistan, particularly in Uruzgan, Helmand and Kandahar provinces, though the Taliban continue to be active in the area.

As part of the NATO deployment, Canadian Brig. Gen. David Fraser on Feb. 28 took control of the multinational force in southern Afghanistan from U.S. Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry. The Canadian forces in southern Afghanistan include troops from the 1st Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry; an engineer squadron; an artillery battery from 1 Royal Canadian Horse Artillery; an armored reconnaissance troop from 12 Régiment blindé du Canada; and an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle unit from 408 Tactical Helicopter Squadron. The Canadians relieved battle-hardened troops from the U.S. Southern European Task Force, including the 173rd Separate Infantry brigade, 3rd battalion, 6th Marines, and the 82nd Airborne Division's 2nd Brigade. Late May 17, the Canadian Parliament narrowly approved a bill to extend the deployment of the country's 2,300 troops in Afghanistan to 2008.

Three factors are converging on the Canadians in Kandahar province: The perception by the Taliban and local warlords that the Canadians are not as formidable an opponent as the U.S. units they replaced, an influx of younger Taliban commanders eager to apply tactics used by insurgents in Iraq to their fight in Afghanistan, and a lack of financial resources to pay off local warlords, tribal leaders and government officials. Until the Canadians and other NATO troops can adjust to their new environment, fighting will continue, and possibly increase, in southern Afghanistan. 

The U.S. presence in southern Afghanistan included selectively spreading money around the region for reconstruction projects. Although ostensibly meant to benefit the local population, especially in rural areas, these projects are actually used as a tool to buy the allegiance of the local warlords and tribal leaders who benefit more directly from them. By building roads, schools and other infrastructure in their areas, the local commanders see their people employed, receive money to provide "protection" for the projects, and get other "gifts" and gratuities as well. The United States had about $30 million to spend on these projects in southern Afghanistan, in addition to projects funded by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).

Canadian commanders, however, lack that kind of money to spread around the local area for reconstruction projects, having only about $2 million to put to work in the area. The Canadians will try to work with various NGOs operating in Afghanistan to fill the shortfall in projects, but this less-direct route could deny them the flexibility that U.S. commanders on the ground enjoyed when disbursing goodies to the locals. This could make local warlords and tribal leaders less cooperative with the Canadians. 

The local insurgents began testing the Canadians within hours after they took over, detonating a roadside bomb in front of a Canadian military convoy in Kandahar. Anytime one military unit assumes responsibility from another, the new unit must learn the nuances of operating in the area, despite a transition period during which soldiers from the old units train the new units. No matter how thorough the changeover, however, the new unit must develop tactics and procedures that are best suited to the way it operates. While the Canadians are learning their way around and establishing new relationships with local commanders and leaders, the Taliban will try to take advantage of the opportunity to take over as much territory as they can in southern Afghanistan. This will include attacks against government buildings in small towns, convoys and reconstruction projects. 

New Taliban commanders have come into southern Afghanistan in recent months as areas sympathetic to the Taliban across the border in Pakistan continue to produce a supply of recruits and combat veterans have risen through the ranks. These younger commanders are eager to apply tactics used by insurgents in Iraq that have proven successful against coalition and Iraqi forces. This might include more urban warfare, suicide attacks, attacks against towns loyal to the Afghan government, and attacks against government officials. The increase in Taliban and al Qaeda activity has brought with it an increase in suicide attacks. Through mid-May, 11 suicide attacks have occurred in Afghanistan, compared to seven in all of 2005.

Taking a lesson from the insurgents in Iraq, the Taliban realize that gaining media attention is an important aspect of their fight. Overrunning a remote small town in Kandahar or Helmand province and holding it for a few days until coalition and Afghan forces arrive to run them out could have an impact locally, but results in little media attention. On the other hand, a suicide or roadside bomb attack that kills a local police chief or official does result in media attention. An attack against coalition troops, particularly a suicide attack, can have even more media impact. 

Unlike Iraq, however, suicide bombings against coalition targets in Afghanistan rarely result in serious casualties. This is partly because of terrain limitations, fewer vehicles on the roads in predominantly rural Afghanistan compared to the urban areas of Iraq, and lower-quality materials used in improvised explosive devices. Convoy tactics learned by coalition forces in Iraq and up-armored Humvees also have mitigated the effects of suicide attacks in Afghanistan. 

As the spring turns into summer, militant activity in Afghanistan will increase. The Canadians and other NATO troops in southern Afghanistan have been adjusting to their surroundings and developing sound operating practices. The attacks will continue, but the casualty counts will continue to be disproportionately heavy on the Taliban side. 
Send questions or comments on this article to analysis@stratfor.com.


www.stratfor.com
Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provision of the Copyright Act.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (19 May 2006)

"Canadian helicopter gunships"

I had no idea we had these.


----------



## paracowboy (19 May 2006)

Quagmire said:
			
		

> "Canadian helicopter gunships"
> 
> I had no idea we had these.


every pilot has a sidearm.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (19 May 2006)

:rofl:


----------



## Springroll (17 Jul 2006)

> Christie Blatchford on Canada's mission in Afghanistan
> Globe and Mail Update
> 
> Globe columnist Christie Blatchford was on patrol with Canadian Forces in Afghanistan over the weekend when Corporal Tony Boneca was killed in a fight with Taliban insurgents near Pasmul. Her story Soldiers engaged in lethal two-day game of cat-and-mouse with Taliban fighters is a vivid, personal account of what happened that fateful day. Her reporting from the scene sparked a strong debate on globeandmail.com as readers alternately praised and condemned it, the issue of embedding journalists and the wisdom of Canada's continuing mission in the troubled country.
> ...



To read the comments and questions click the following link: 
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060710.wlivekandahar0711/BNStory/specialComment/home/?pageRequested=all


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Jul 2006)

Please, please, please, _Springroll_: when you lift text from somewhere else (as you did, in this case, from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060710.wlivekandahar0711/BNStory/specialComment/home/?pageRequested=all  ) provide at least a citation as the rules ( http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24937.0.html ) require.  Your little link at the bottom is insufficient; you need to indicate, clearly, that all the text above it is a direct lift from the _Globe and Mail_'s web site.  You leave the impression that the complete post is your work - your idea, your words.

I'm sure you do not want to mislead Army.ca members and guests - some of whom may work for the _Globe and Mail_.

There is a good reason so many of us are careful to document sources and post a disclaimer re: the Copyright Act when we copy text from copyright holders' sites.  It is their _intellectual property_ and they deserve (and may *require*) an acknowledgement of that fact.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (17 Jul 2006)

I wish we could clone her...she's wonderful.


Matthew.


----------



## Roy Harding (17 Jul 2006)

She's the only woman on earth that my wife need worry about - and I've told her (and my wife) so.

What a goil!!


----------



## Springroll (18 Jul 2006)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> Please, please, please, _Springroll_: when you lift text from somewhere else (as you did, in this case, from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060710.wlivekandahar0711/BNStory/specialComment/home/?pageRequested=all  ) provide at least a citation as the rules ( http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24937.0.html ) require.  Your little link at the bottom is insufficient; you need to indicate, clearly, that all the text above it is a direct lift from the _Globe and Mail_'s web site.  You leave the impression that the complete post is your work - your idea, your words.
> 
> I'm sure you do not want to mislead Army.ca members and guests - some of whom may work for the _Globe and Mail_.
> 
> There is a good reason so many of us are careful to document sources and post a disclaimer re: the Copyright Act when we copy text from copyright holders' sites.  It is their _intellectual property_ and they deserve (and may *require*) an acknowledgement of that fact.



Thank you for that, Edward Campbell.
I do not normally post news items, but when I read that, I wanted to share it with the many on here who enjoy what she has to say.
I also thought that the "Globe and Mail Update" underneath the title would have been sufficient to show that it was not a work of mine, as well as the link at the bottom. I had checked the first few posts in the Current Affairs and News section and they did not have a disclaimer.
I also had no intentions of misleading anyone, so if I did, I am sorry. I did go through the rules and according to them, I did do as per the rules by posting the link and by putting down "Globe and Mail Update"(citing my source). I will fix the link so that it does not read as "Read the comments and such here" and will put the entire thing into quotes so that it it can not be mistaken that it is not a work of my own creation.

Thank you.


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Jul 2006)

Your post seemed obvious to me to me, then again what do I know about copywrites and stuff.

I miss the old ol army.ca days


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Aug 2006)

Here is a _bang-on_ piece from *Christie Blatchford* in today’s _Globe and Mail_.  It is reproduced here under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060804.wxafghanblatch04/BNStory/Afghanistan/home


> Seriously, this means war
> 
> *CHRISTIE BLATCHFORD*
> From Friday's Globe and Mail
> ...



She has managed to pull together the Middle Eastern/West-Central Asian battlefields and events right here at home.


I agree 100% with the last two paragraphs (which I highlighted):


•	We are at war, whether that dumbkopf Ujjal Dosanjh and the (apparent) majority of the _ostriches_ in the Liberal Party of Canada’s caucus understand it or not; and


•	Those many (most?) Canadians with the jelly-like spines need to stop taking counsel of their fears; there is much to fear, right here in our own towns and cities, from the radical Islamic fanatics who, as Blatchford says, _”… would keep their fellow Muslims in perpetual poverty and ignorance so that they might be made into martyrs …”_.  We are also under _attack_, as a_majoor has pointed out here in Army.ca, in a 4GW campaign being waged in newspapers and public meetings by those who want to stifle all dissent within their own community and bend Canadians to their own specific point of view. 

BZ, Ms Blatchford!

Edit: to spell the dunderhead's name correctly


----------



## Weinie (4 Aug 2006)

As always, Christie is bang on. She's like the Don Cherry of journalism, willing to say "here be monsters" as opposed to taking the bland, middle of the road, PC approach that so many in the MSM take, when they are not spouting leftish tripe.


----------



## MarkOttawa (4 Aug 2006)

See _Norman's Spectator's_ TODAY'S IDIOCY, Dosanjh and Axworthy:
http://www.members.shaw.ca/nspector4/IDIOCY.htm

This is the Toronto Star story it's based on, "Afghan mission under fire":
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1154641811978&call_pageid=968332188774&col=968350116467

For the record: this is what NDP leader Jack Layton said a year ago about Gen. Hillier's "scumbags" remark:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v4/sub/MarketingPage?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2FArticleNews%2FTPStory%2FLAC%2F20050716%2FMILITARY16%2FTPNational%2FCanada&ord=1388346&brand=theglobeandmail&redirect_reason=2&denial_reasons=none&force_login=false

'"Controlled anger, given what's happened, is an appropriate response," NDP Leader Jack Layton said. "We have a very committed, level-headed head of our armed forces, who isn't afraid to express the passion that underlies the mission that front-line personnel are going to be taking on.

"A bit of strong language in the circumstances, I don't find that to be wrong."'

This what he said in the Commons debate on Afghanistan, May 17 this year:
http://www.ndp.ca/page/3757

'Mr. Speaker, New Democrats stand in opposition to this government’s plans to lock our country into a long-term war-fighting role in Afghanistan, a role that does not properly reflect the principles and ideals of the people of Canada...

For nearly five decades Canada has pursued peace in nations around the world...Canada has built a reputation as a respected peacekeeping nation...

...Our foreign policy must reflect the reality that we are a country renowned for our pursuit of peace, we are a nation of facilitators not occupiers, we are a people committed to the ideals of building bridges not burning them, we must not allow that legacy of good work to falter in the growing shadow of the Bush Administration’s Operation Enduring Freedom...'

What changed his mind? And we're now under NATO command anyway. 

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GAP (4 Aug 2006)

Is tar and feathers still in vogue? I have a spare chicken and I am sure Alberta will donate the tar....  ;D


----------



## military granny (4 Aug 2006)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com//servlet/story/LAC.20060804.AFGHANBLATCH04/TPStory/National/columnists

My favorite line.
*The least we can do -- and we do, in this country, prefer to do the least -- is stiffen our collective resolve, face up to the truth, and recognize that the soldiers' terrible sacrifice is in our name.*


----------



## MarkOttawa (4 Aug 2006)

Some of the stupid stuff in the _Crvena Zvezda_:

Afghan mission under fire
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1154641811978&call_pageid=968332188774&col=968350116467

Excerpts:

'"The news is sad, frustrating and troubling," said Peggy Mason, who served as Canadian ambassador for disarmament under the Brian Mulroney government. "What are we doing there?"..

Only a few years ago, Canadian troops were sent off to Kabul on what was billed as a peace mission. Today they're poised at the pointy edge of the bloodiest region in the country as the death toll rises.

Fifteen Canadian soldiers have died in the last six months and that tragic trend may continue, worries *Steven Staples* [my emphasis], the director of security programs for the Polaris Institute, a privately funded public research institute.

Staples reacted to yesterday's news with "sadness, alarm — but not surprise," he said.

"The trend lines have been moving down this path," he noted. "The increasing effectiveness of insurgent attacks suggests that our defences have been eroded.

"And we're seeing an increased sophistication in the tactics used by the insurgents."

Parliament should be recalled, former foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy said in a telephone interview from Manitoba. The crisis in the Middle East and the tragic news from Afghanistan demand it, he said.

"I don't think Parliament should be on summer holiday," Axworthy said.

He said the discussion should focus on how Canada's original peace support operations in Afghanistan have evolved into what now appears to many as all-out combat.

"We were originally told that we would apply the concept of the 3-D approach in Afghanistan — the application of defence, diplomacy and development," he said. "Now it has become one big `D.'..

Axworthy said Canadians have yet to get a satisfactory explanation from the federal government as to how and why that shift in Canada's Afghan mission occurred.

"But," he added, "there's an innate sense among the public that this is not right."..

Mason, who has tried to spark a national debate about why Canadian troops are in Kandahar, spoke plainly: "There is no military solution to Afghanistan's problems," she said, suggesting aggressive combat operations have simply made the situation worse.

Mason, a faculty member of the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre, said that "instead of focusing on a losing military battle," Stephen Harper's government should be urgently working with NATO and its North Atlantic Council, "to develop a new strategy, a winning strategy."..'

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (4 Aug 2006)

Funny, how the people[media, polititions and soldiers] that have had the parts to go there and see the complete 3D work that Canadians do, are not the ones crying crocodile tears.......just the ones that sit here and whine therebye aiding world terrorism everywhere.


----------



## pbi (4 Aug 2006)

Ahh...Mr Staples and friends, yet again. And still unfettered by irritating things like truth. How did he get to be an "expert", anyway? And why does the media quote him?

And this silliness:

"Only a few years ago, Canadian troops were sent off to Kabul on what was billed as a peace mission. Today they're poised at the pointy edge of the bloodiest region in the country as the death toll rises."

Billed as a "peace mission" by whom? Is this country in the grips of an epidemic of mass amnesia? 

What would the course of history have been if people like this had been running the show in Canada in 1939? After all, Hitler was really just a far away foreign fanatic, wasn't he? How many Canadians did he kill before we declared war on him? Did he attack Canada? Wasn't he just killing stupid foreigners who deserved it because of their dumb and backwards way of life?  Wasn't it really just an imperialist British war? Right?

Cheers


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Aug 2006)

This is why we're there. No need for long winded diatrabes. A picture is worth a thousand words.

Muslims have stated that England will be the first country they take over! 
These pictures are of Muslims marching through the streets of London during their recent "Religion of Peace Demonstration."


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Aug 2006)

More.....


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Aug 2006)

and more.......


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Aug 2006)

and the last couple.

Nice peaceful religion.


----------



## Infanteer (4 Aug 2006)

I like this one myself.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/wichman.asp


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (4 Aug 2006)

So whats the solution?  Cut our losses and send ALL Muslims to the ME and forbid any Muslim Immigrants?


----------



## MarkOttawa (4 Aug 2006)

pbi: 





> What would the course of history have been if people like this had been running the show in Canada in 1939?



The 1941 answer:

"War: The nuanced Liberal perspective"
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/007177.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## McG (15 Aug 2006)

> Afghan mission not deterred by tragedies: Hillier
> Last Updated: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 | 12:00 PM NT
> CBC News
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Aug 2006)

Here is an interesting and informative piece from Sean Maloney (RMC) from today’s _Globe and Mail_; it ought to be required reading for some of the _Good Grey Globe_’s so-called pundits, some of whom cannot refrain from demonstrating their abysmal ignorance of things military/tactical and strategic.  This article is reproduced here under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060825.wxcoafghan25/BNStory/specialComment/home


> Our successes are many
> 
> *SEAN MALONEY*
> 
> ...



Anyway, for the benefit of the _lurkers_ from the fourth estate: stay around Army.ca long enough and even you weasels cannot help but learn something.  Now, back to the top and read it again …


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Sep 2006)

"Cross COuntry Check-up" started about 40 minutes ago (1600E), and continues until 1800E, and today's topic is 
"What's your view of Canada's mission in Afghanistan? "

Here's the co-ordinates:
Toll-free number (during the broadcast only): 
1-888-416-8333 

Send us your views by e-mail to checkup@cbc.ca 

If we don't get our message out, nobody else will....


----------



## McG (3 Sep 2006)

http://www.cbc.ca/checkup/checkup.html


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Sep 2006)

Just heard CDS is going to be on the radio later.

Here's my e-mail - let's see how much they use......

This is a situation where the reality of a hugely complex situation, that will likely take decades to
completely solve, butts up against the other reality of democratic governments seeking popular mandates for re-election.

History, tribal conflict, poverty - all these make Afghanistan's issues difficult to deal with.  Unless
they're dealt with, though, they will go back to the good old days of keeping girls out of school, and
banning music.

It's hard to envision any party, no matter what political stripe, saying, "we think this is a solution
we need for 15-20 years, and we don't care what you voters have to say about it."

The longer it goes, the more sons and daughters of Canada we see die.  The longer it goes, though, the
closer we get to a final resolution.  The political question any party in power will ask is:  can we get
the problem solved before voters get so upset over the deaths that they turf us from power?

This is not to bash democracy, but it's hard to solve problems that need decades of consistent work through solutions that can only be promoted by parties in power for only 2-5 years at a time.


----------



## McG (3 Sep 2006)

Hopefully the CDS has some facts to counter the NDP's recent missinformation efforts: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/49583.0.html (like the "exit strategy" and ill-defined mission notions).


----------



## medicineman (3 Sep 2006)

Pity the MoD didn't see fit to take Jack and his oxymoronical defence critic with him to Khandahar to get a first hand look at what's happening.  But, I suppose it's always better to criticize from a safe armchair smewhere than actually learning first hand.

MM

.


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Sep 2006)

medicineman - Flip side of that same coin would be, "I've been there, Mr. Speaker, and I can tell you that this government (insert NDP'esque statement here)."

Memory fails - has any Liberal politician been there?  I remember Adrienne Clarkson spending some time there, but not any politicos....


----------



## medicineman (3 Sep 2006)

Touche.

I seem to remember McCallum showing up to visit us in Kabul in '03 - otherwise I can't seem to remember anyothers.

Of course, Mr O'Connor doesn't have to bring them back with him if he took them to visit with him... > (OOOOPS - inside voice again)

MM


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Sep 2006)

Sounded good in your head, right?  ;D


----------



## medicineman (3 Sep 2006)

Indeed.

MM


----------



## McG (3 Sep 2006)

The results are in (sort of): http://www.cbc.ca/checkup/letters060903.html


----------



## PPCLI Guy (3 Sep 2006)

Minister Graham visited Kandahar during the team Canada visit in (IIRC) fall of 05.  We also had MPs from all three parties embedded with sections during ROTO 0 - and they earned the right by attending the valex in Pet.


----------



## 1Good_Woman (3 Sep 2006)

Didn't Alexa McDonough visit KAF in the past year?


----------



## HDE (3 Sep 2006)

I' m inclined to think those who listen to, and email, Cross Country Checkup, arguably one of CBC's better efforts,  are a pretty homogenous group.  Consider the number who explain it all by saying we're only there because the U.S. wants us there.  Do they realize that various of our NATO allies are also there; hopefully they're not all lackeys of the U.S.!   Judging by the emails sent in there's very little thought given to the plight of the Afghans if the Taliban do prevail; that'd probably cloud the issue far too much.


----------



## 043 (3 Sep 2006)

Does he not realize that if NATO pulls out, there will be no chance for humanitarian aid to be delivered?????? What a pump!


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Sep 2006)

Not to worry - if NATO pulled out, and the aid didn't get through, it would STILL be the fault of the West - "If you didn't invade, they wouldn't be so pissed off" sorta argument....


----------



## warspite (3 Sep 2006)

Some people make sense and argue their point with with logic or reason, wether for or against the war. But most of them sound like the *mindless yuppies * I hate oh so much. When I read the words"Jack Layton is right" I had to rest my head and breathe deeply..count to ten... and bang my head against my monitor in frustration.


----------



## josh (3 Sep 2006)

Who the f_ck  actually listens to CBC radio? ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Sep 2006)

josh - people who vote listen to the CBC, like it or not  The problem lies in those whose world view is ONLY shaped by the media.


----------



## warspite (3 Sep 2006)

Josh- I only do when theres nothing else... and I mean when there are physically no other stations...*occasionally* they have something good.

milnewstbay- You hit the nail on the head.


----------



## 043 (3 Sep 2006)

As a serving member who is posted to a school who has no chance in hell of getting to Afganistan soon, I am pleading and begging for us to stay the course. We need to!!!!!! Once you commit, you need to remain committed. We have a dangerous job and loss of life is part of the price. I think the general public needs to know that everyone who is in Afganistan wants to be there. And if there are people who don't want to go there, they don't go. As for myself, my wife is deploying in Feb and while I know the risks and am concerned, I understand that it is a dangerous job and that anything can happen. Stay the course, keep up the fight, and get some!!!!!!!!! Don't listen to some scum sucking politician who is just trying to get the peacenik votes!!!!!!!!


----------



## josh (3 Sep 2006)

People who vote?  You do mean NDP-types and pointy-heads that watch PBS?  Their votes don’t count anyways. The only reason to listen to CBC radio is if it’s the only station you can get up north at 0300 in the morning to prevent you and your car from slamming into rock cuts.  CBC isn’t exactly the biggest fan of the Canadian military and at best it pays lip service to it through its left-wing programming.   How many reporters do they have in Kandahar today?  One, and she’s a bit of a heavy.  Lots of reporting from the wrong side of the HESCO.   Your tax dollars at work.


----------



## big bad john (3 Sep 2006)

josh said:
			
		

> People who vote?  You do mean NDP-types and pointy-heads that watch PBS?  Their votes don’t count anyways. The only reason to listen to CBC radio is if it’s the only station you can get up north at 0300 in the morning to prevent you and your car from slamming into rock cuts.  CBC isn’t exactly the biggest fan of the Canadian military and at best it pays lip service to it through its left-wing programming.   How many reporters do they have in Kandahar today?  One, and she’s a bit of a heavy.  Lots of reporting from the wrong side of the HESCO.   Your tax dollars at work.



You know, I listen to CBC every once in a while and my wife says that politically I am slightly to the right of Genghis Khan.


----------



## Haggis (3 Sep 2006)

josh said:
			
		

> People who vote?  You do mean NDP-types and pointy-heads that watch PBS?  Their votes don’t count anyways.



Like it or not, Josh, every vote is counted and every vote counts. (even pointy heads have the democratic right to vote)  It's what party that vote supports that counts even more.


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Sep 2006)

Don't want to sound alarmist, Josh, but the alternative is a government-controlled press, which is fine IF you agree with the government in power.  I hear you, though, about the approach CBC sometimes seems to take when covering certain stories.  I guess what I'm saying is that, in this situation, as much as one can, we should get our messages out there, too - open line shows like "Cross Country Checkup" are the best chance of getting the unfiltered msg across (yeah, no guarantees of getting past the call screeners, but if we don't try, we don't get).


----------



## TCBF (3 Sep 2006)

Well, the jig is almost up - get your tour in quick, or you won't get one.  The CPC will lose all of the 'wobbly' bubblehead votes because of CBC turning into 'The Military Funeral Network', and they will lose the far right votes because of their unwillingness to throw the gun owners a bone and change the SAP regulations back to where they were two years ago.

"My center is pressed, my flanks give way..."  etc.

PM Martha Hall Findlay, here we come...


----------



## RangerRay (4 Sep 2006)

Aside from Rex Murphy, CBC is a useless sinkhole of tax dollars that should be privatised immediately!

Or at least turned into a PBS, where they get their funding from donors.


----------



## josh (4 Sep 2006)

…… or PM that doofus Rex Murphy.  In the end your opinions will still mean nothing, but you’ll feel more "Canadian" for actually stating them.  A round of Timmies for all! ;D


----------



## peaches (4 Sep 2006)

Working the midnight shift, just saw the report about 4 Canadians in A-Stan, followed immed after by "cut & run" Jack Layton of the *N*o *D*am clue *P*arty.  He was "hoisting the white flag", and saying we should negotiate with the Taliban.  He might have something here, perhaps Jack & Alexa would be interested in going to A-Stan and meeting with the Taliban as our negotiator (fat chance they'd volunteer) ;D.  I am sure the radical mulahs would just love to hear what those fools has to say before they cut of their heads.  

Why do these left wing A$%# Holes always scream & yell about human rights, rule of law etc, and run like hell the other way when it comes time to actually do anything about it.


----------



## warspite (4 Sep 2006)

Because that's their true policy. To barrage everyone with Jack in the box's mindless ramble: 

Whine whine American agenda whine...blah blah Utopian blah...unjust war blah blah...taliban victims here blah blah... doog PDN dab repraH whine whine blah..etc etc and etc.

But enough criticizing the NDP and Jack in the box, think of all the great things they have done for the country.....like uhm....

Scratch that
Give them a full broadside.


----------



## rmacqueen (4 Sep 2006)

In defence of CBC, I just listened to the show and Rex Murphy did go after Layton to explain how we can rebuild Afghanistan as long as people like the Taliban and Al Qieda are running around.  Layton, on the other hand, was dancing faster than Fred Astaire with his answers (and I use that term very lightly as he never actually did answer)


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (4 Sep 2006)

big bad john said:
			
		

> You know, I listen to CBC every once in a while and my wife says that politically I am slightly to the right of Genghis Khan.



Well I gotta admit I do too and I'm definately somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan!
I turn it off when the stupid leftist stuff gets to be too much but there are other good things on there. It does serve to inform on real issues that are happening around the country and internationally. You can't really be informed if all you do is listen to Classic or Soft rock and watch ET television.

I try to read all the newspapers on line to get various viewpoints....Globe and Mail is really pushing the Layton this morning...the Star (usually not our friend) is not playing it up at all. The Sun is vehemently against Layton (no surprise there). CTV is pretty good to us mostly and CBC TV(if we forget about the McKennas) is trying to give us good coverage...Global is OK but tends to be a little superficial (as most TV coverage inevitably is I guess)

I think if we don't monitor these different agencies and register our views we run the risk of letting the wooley heads be the only voices heard and then the mainstream begin to think that is the way we all should think etc. My 2 cents worth on a morning of loss for our Army....condolences and prayers to all.


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Sep 2006)

+1 IN HOC SIGNO, rmacqueen....

I'm kinda surprised that more people don't seem to go straight to the source for some information.  It would be interesting to see how many times the biggest whiners have gone to Canada's gov't site on its work in AFG:
http://www.canada-afghanistan.gc.ca/menu-en.asp

Hell, there's even a "Why We Are There" page:
http://www.canada-afghanistan.gc.ca/mission-en.asp

Is everything there?  I haven't been downrange in AFG, so I can't say, but at least have a look at what the folks in Ottawa SAY they're doing.  If the words don't match the actions, fair game to complain.  If you still disagree, as long as it's based on understanding what the gov't is trying to do, again fair ball.  It sounds like many whiners, though, don't even have a look in the first place.


----------

