Search results

A more coherent report from Reuters, which reports three killed, not 11: http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSSCH94519720070519 More at link

Where is the media frenzy accompanying this story?  Where are the "gotcha" interviews at the airport as CPA representatives return to Canada?  Where are the questions in Parliament? Unlike the unfortunate Shane Doan, these people claim to want to be part of public discourse and are seeking...

Sadly, this is what passes for debate regarding this issue on the G&M site: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070502.whillier0502/CommentStory/Afghanistan/#alertForm Frightening...

What 200?  ::)

We deploy all the time based on cabinet direction, without reference to or with the authority of Parliament.  They can do it on their own...

The current Parliamentary approval for the deployment (which, in the end, means very little) "expires" in Feb 09.  It can easily be extended by Cabinet order...

Using time tested Canadian tactics to counter such things.  "Blow a tank from nowhere"...heh.  You have no idea what you're talking about. Methinks you underestimate the "raggy fighters" in Afghanistan... Actually, yes we can.  In fact, the majority of them are. And what do you, with your...

Hebridean: You don't really know what you're talking about.  The Army abandoned attempts to procure tanks after it became painfully obvious that the government(s) of the day wouldn't support the purchase of such an "offensive" weapon.  Once that became clear, the Army - and Hillier - had to...

...until you've seen the life cycle costs that they're paying... It's a good deal for (arguably) a better tank.  The A6M is state of the art and has the 55 calibre main gun... I'll stack it against an electronics-festooned M1A2 any day.

Not quite, GAP, the top two vehicles are Cougars - the 76mm variant of the AVGP, now out of service.  The bottom picture is of a Coyote.

There are 66 - total - in service.

The speculation should sum up.  A good 70% of what's being posted here is wrong, including by those who claim to be "in the know".  Wait for the proper, official announcement - if and when it comes.

You give yourselves too much credit.  This was thought of well before the deployment and identified as an issue.  Unfortunately, there was no simple solution available.

I rarely agree with Dyer, but he's bang on with his commentary.

It's hardly the "truth" , it is neo-con rhetoric and is an prime example of why I (for one) felt it necessary to note the massive failure of US foreign policy in the past decade when addressing this specific issue.  If some are skeptical of the standard US approach, it is because they have felt...

Doesn't change a thing - the MOD made the right call, as did the CO who referred the question back for direction.  The fact that this was done is hardly reflective of a "political game" - these types of questions are often referred back for decision by higher authority. Edit to correct snarky...

The first poster referred to both CSOR and JTF-2... Hence my "not quite"...  ;)

Ummm, not quite: Ref:  CANFORGEN 052/07

IAJG: You were pretty blunt in quoting doctrine - to the point of using a mild expletive - and pretty blunt in stating what should and shouldn't have been said.  However, you're missing the nuances of military writing, particularly as part of direction:  "should" and "could" aren't the same as...

Frankly, I'm surprised that after so much speculation, criticism and hyperbole the mods haven't stepped in to put a stop to it.  I am certain that had we been dealing with such heavy criticism of US forces, the warnings would be flying and the usual suspects would be dog-piling the poor poster...