• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Canadian Public Opinion Polls on Afghanistan

That's true, getting in other peoples media is hard.  However, it's not impossible to get small nods such as the one I mentioned above.

Go read some foreign newspapers online, I only recently noticed it.  Canada with all it's peace keeping clout is still pigeon holed into 'coaltion forces' or 'un peace keeping coaltion'.  While other countries such as Britain and US seem to get honourable mentions, regardless of where the newspaper is published. 

I still think the Canadian army needs all the attention it can get.  It's hard selling our own military to our own citizens let alone beyond the border.  US top brass speak highly of Canadian soldiers. (score!) And since I'm convinced this is why we are there, for the attention/experience why not go the full nine and deploy a large unit. 

Because 2000 troops is 1/3 to 1/4 of the entire Army's deployable forces. We could never, ever get 10 000 troops overseas at this time without some major changes in the CF.

What changes?  Is it impossible to deploy 10,000? I though the changes in the CF made this sort of thing more flexable.  Hence the transformation (and a means to cut jobs and save money)
 
Scipio said:
What changes?  Is it impossible to deploy 10,000? I though the changes in the CF made this sort of thing more flexable.  Hence the transformation (and a means to cut jobs and save money)

You are not swiming in your lane there chump, Sure we can deploy 10000 people but who's going to replace them then ?  How are you going to rotate your forces if you have already deployed them all ? Who is going to be left behind to train new soldiers ? You also have no clue what you are talking about when you mention transformation.

back to the kiddie pool for you  ::)
 
Scipio said:
What changes?  Is it impossible to deploy 10,000? I though the changes in the CF made this sort of thing more flexable.  Hence the transformation (and a means to cut jobs and save money)

Yes, it would be impossible. 10 000 would mean deployment of almost every deployable soldier in the Reg F army. There would literally be no one left behind for secondary tasks.
 
Armymedic said:
Yes, it would be impossible. 10 000 would mean deployment of almost every deployable soldier in the Reg F army. There would literally be no one left behind for secondary tasks.
....like training Recruits and QL3s.
 
20 years is hardly history?  No comment

You are not swiming in your lane there chump, Sure we can deploy 10000 people but who's going to replace them then ?  How are you going to rotate your forces if you have already deployed them all ? Who is going to be left behind to train new soldiers ? You also have no clue what you are talking about when you mention transformation.

back to the kiddie pool for you  Roll Eyes

You're right, troop rotation is something I never considered.  Thanks for the analogy to kiddie pools and calling  me a chump.  It's things like these which keep me coming back for more, no really it is.  But be fair, you've hung around here long enough to snag over 2,000 posts.  I'm sure you know more about the army than I do.  Your comment would have been just as effective if you left out the first bit and last bit.
 
Scipio said:
20 years is hardly history?  No comment

You're right, troop rotation is something I never considered.  Thanks for the analogy to kiddie pools and calling  me a chump.  It's things like these which keep me coming back for more, no really it is.  But be fair, you've hung around here long enough to snag over 2,000 posts.  I'm sure you know more about the army than I do.  Your comment would have been just as effective if you left out the first bit and last bit.

But it was alot more fun
 
Ok then, for the sake of fun I'll take a silver bullet.  Or an aquatic analogy, whichever.
 
Scipio said:
Which ones have needed to be rebuilt?

Iraq today, Iraq 20 years ago, Afghanistan today, Afghanistan 20 so years ago,  Iran after it's war with Iraq.  Economically and socially the countries I outlined above were destroyed.

The nations were not destroyed. Iraq 20 years ago was actually a prosperous, liberal land by Islamic and Western standards.

Scipio said:
Every major war since NAM have taken place on Middle East soil.  And NOTHING good has come of it.  No resolution, no rebuilding, nothing

Do you consider Rwanda, Sudan, Ethiopia, and Tamil non-existent wars?

Scipio said:
I still think the Canadian army needs all the attention it can get.

Why? Last time I looked the CF was in the business of defense, *NOT* advertising. I cannot and will not speak for the troops, but from my civi lane, I bet it's easier for the soldiers to do their jobs without the media milling about. I know I can do my job better out of the limelight, when I can concentrate on my work, without thinking in the back of my head how it will look on the National or Lloyd Robertson.
 
Scipio said:
Having our troops there gives Canadians a sense of pride in knowing that we are affecting international events, something reserved for upper echelon power houses.  On an international scale, Canada is very irrelevant.

:eek:

Irrelevant? Our small nation is in the G8, not something I would consider irrelevant. Nations from all over the globe come to Canada to study a nation that works; perfect we are not but we must have some relevance if nation builders allover the globe study how we do things so they can implement the info back home. In any case, I'd rather we stay the course as a model power than a power house.

Scipio said:
Cnn.com, BBC.com, French, and German news sites all use the same wording when describing land forces in Afghanistan.  "US and Britain led Coalition forces are currently blah blah...".  Last time I checked a Canadian held significant rank in Khandar and the largest body of troops in the region was made up of Canadians.  It's a bit of slap.

They all have contact info on the web sites; tell them about their error.
 
Scipio said:
Opposition groups have displayed very little difference from that of the Taliban.

WTF? Are you seriously equating Canadian governmental opposition parties with the Taliban? Last time I looked they all had females and people with different skin colour in the party ranks. They all have the right to speak up. Sorry, but your analogy is off base; that's about as far from the Taliban as you can get.

Scipio said:
While Western people feel the need to keep an open mind towards difference, fundamental Islam preaches the opposite, so right there we have nothing in common.

Really? Fundamentalism, including the Christian type preaches the same thing.
 
I am always amazed at how quickly some assumptions sneak into our consciousness.  The idea that one needs to declare war to have one is a complete modern creation.  During ages of formalized warfare, like the Successor states period of post Alexander Greece, late middle ages to-19th century Europe where small professional armies fought limited wars for limited objectives, using largely the same weapons and militaries sharing common social, religious, and political philosophies, declarations of war, conventions of prisoner exchange and ransom, truce, parley, and surrender were common.  Without the parity of forces, and shared social conventions, formal declarations of war, or even of peace, were uncommon.  Prior to the twentieth century, people understood the basic fact that if your soldiers were engaged in killing people, and attempting not to be killed by them, then you are at war.  In Rome, the temple of Janus only closed its doors when Rome was at peace.  In the century before the rise of Caesar, the doors were closed twice.  In that same period there were only a couple of declarations of war (notably against the Belgae and Mithrades of Pontus), although the legions were constantly at war on the frontiers, and even in the Itallian territories themselves both against foreign foes, and in civil war.  Declarations of war have always been the exception, not the rule. 
      Take a good look at the death tolls of soldiers in the world since 1945, and then compare the rolls of the dead to the declarations of war.  How many dead have fallen in declared wars since 1945?  Certainly not the majority.  Outside of a few months of declared war involving Israel, almost all of the soldiers killed in combat have fallen in "policing action",  "peacekeeping",  civil insurrection, border clashes, tribal clashes, terrorist actions, counter-terrorist actions, ethnic cleansing.  To the people on either end of the gun (or machete, bomb, missile, mortar shell) it is war.  To the dead it was war.  Burned into the survivors are all the horrors of war.  It is only the press and politicians who seek other words.
 
TTM

The Iran-Iraq war left 1 million causualites, two countries poorer than poor, weak militaries, and a very discontent public.  The US saved Iraq by funding them with guns and food (not for altruistic purposes).  I'd say both countries could have undergone a change and did recieve ample aid from foreign powers.  Iraq did change in many ways.  Saddam was a leftist, like you pointed out, and abolished Islamic laws and granted greater freedom to women.  Of course, he also supressed and kill his enemies but that's a side track. 

Do you consider Rwanda, Sudan, Ethiopia, and Tamil non-existent wars?

No, I'm not considering Africa since my topic was centered else where.  But we can talk about Africa if you like, as far as discontent, poverty, and warlords are concerend, It would be a good cross over.

Why? Last time I looked the CF was in the business of defense, *NOT* advertising. I cannot and will not speak for the troops, but from my civi lane, I bet it's easier for the soldiers to do their jobs without the media milling about. I know I can do my job better out of the limelight, when I can concentrate on my work, without thinking in the back of my head how it will look on the National or Lloyd Robertson.

Well, I'm not so sure why the CF needs to be so 'cut and dry'.  They can do both - advertise and defend.  I don't understand what you mean about' the media miilling about'. Kudos from the press and better funding in advertisment does not need to encrouch on the soliders.  Don't worry, I was not talking about limelight, this isn't about indiviual fame.  Rather this could be about better relations between civillians and the milltary and better advertising of what we have.  I went my entire life without ever once running into a "CF recruitment" advertisment.  Infact, it was through the US military advertisments on the web that I became interested in joining up for the CF. 

During my post-secondary career, never once did I ever consider being a solider as an occupation, it was never around to be noticed.  The CF did not show up for carreer fairs, school events, or even parades.  I live in Vancouver, perhaps things are different elsewhere.  But I did spend time at UofA in Edmonton and did go to a carreer fair on campus.  I don't recall seeing the CF at a booth.

WTF? Are you seriously equating Canadian governmental opposition parties with the Taliban? Last time I looked they all had females and people with different skin colour in the party ranks. They all have the right to speak up. Sorry, but your analogy is off base; that's about as far from the Taliban as you can get.

I was refering to opposition within Afghanistan. My whole point was how disconnected our two worlds are and that any party within Canada would probably have little stake, other than image, to commit troops in Khandar.  Yikes, I can't fathom how you came to your interpretation.  Maybe I need a lesson in writing~

They all have contact info on the web sites; tell them about their error.

Oh, that's cute.

Irrelevant? Our small nation is in the G8, not something I would consider irrelevant. Nations from all over the globe come to Canada to study a nation that works; perfect we are not but we must have some relevance if nation builders allover the globe study how we do things so they can implement the info back home. In any case, I'd rather we stay the course as a model power than a power house.

We're in the G8! What leverage do we have, and how powerful are Canadian players within the G8 community?  What I'm trying to say is that Canada's hand in world events (WTO, IMF) is very weak.  The soft wood lumber recent events is a good example.  We do not call shots on anything outside our borders and our involvement, or lack thereof, in international events is 'take it or leave it'.  We could be on scene or not.  Either way it would make little impact.  Keep in mind, I'm only refering to power politics.  Canada does do many good things and has many talented people, but politically on a global scale we rank very low.  Some see this as a good thing, "flying below the radar" and what have you.
 
Scipio.

gee.  I thought this thread was about "IS the Afghanistan mission in Canada's interest?".  Nice to see you can keep on target (as an example you are talking about softwood lumber.  Connection to this thread is??????).

Anyhow, while everyone is entitled to their opinion and the right to voice it...remember that you are not and have never been part of the community in the country, and other countries, that fought for those rights, or protect them today.

Perhaps the people who have taken (or wasted) their time trying to explain things to you in this thread who are in the Armed Forces "actually know what they are talking about".

You don't seem to appreciate Canada the way others do, using words like "irrelevant" to describe your country.  If so unhappy as a Canadian, please, feel free to leave.  I hear there are some job openings in Sudan, Afghanistan, or Iraq that might be of interest to you. 

I, sir, have the flag of this great country tattooed on my left shoulder.  That's how much I believe in the country.  And I wear it proudly.  And I also wear it on the left shoulder of my uniform to work every day.  Proudly.

Please don't come back to my post with comments, I have spent enough time reading your thoughts and do not wish to waste more time on your opinion of this country.  I find your comments about Canada insulting as a Canadian and as a soldier, I think you need a good s**tkicking.
MRM
 
Well now if the women have it so good over there...why the heck do they have to cover their faces and bodies...why does a woman starve to death in her own home if she loses her husband and has no other male relative to take her for groceries...she is not allowed out of the house without a family male companion...hello I think the women have a long way to go and I am proud to be part of a country that is trying to ensure they women have the same rights in that country as a Canadian woman has.
Saddam made it better for women did he????  Well I must have missed something there...

Stephen Harper's goals for Canada are refreshing and wanting to be more of a presence around the world militarily will ensure that my grandfathers don't roll over in their graves wondering what the heck they fought overseas for for four long years.

We have helped liberate more than one country in our (Canada) day...and that is part of being Canadian...and should always remain to be so...in Afghanistan and wherever others in a position of suppression exist.

HL
 
If so unhappy as a Canadian, please, feel free to leave.  I hear there are some job openings in Sudan, Afghanistan, or Iraq that might be of interest to you. 

Just to play devils advocate, don't we as Canadians have the RIGHT to question our government and their actions? Or do you subscribe to the "love it or leave it" camp! ::)
 
hey 2Cdo,

yes...and  yes.  ;D

Question the intent, policies, direction and everything all you want...I do it myself BUT I don't go on forums and call Canada...irrelevant.

For those who know Stompin' Tom Connors...words from one of his song...

"If  you don't believe you country, should come before yourself...you can better serve your country...by living somewhere's else".

Not that Stompin' Tom is known for his intellect and insight into international events/Canada's foreign policy... :argument:
 
hey 2Cdo,

yes...and  yes. 

Question the intent, policies, direction and everything all you want...I do it myself BUT I don't go on forums and call Canada...irrelevant.

For those who know Stompin' Tom Connors...words from one of his song...

"If  you don't believe you country, should come before yourself...you can better serve your country...by living somewhere's else".

Not that Stompin' Tom is known for his intellect and insight into international events/Canada's foreign policy...

Even in jest I find this disturbing. Countries in the past that subscribed to this analogy(other than the US) were for the most part either dictatorships or communist. Which kind of go hand in hand! Sorry you don't think that citizens should voice their displeasure with things that their country does, but such is life in a democracy!
Personally I don't think Scipio was far off with his analogy. Canada isn't completely irrelevant, but it was getting close with the actions of our previous government. Canada, under our previous government, almost made it Canadian policy to insult our neighbour daily if for any reason. We are not a heavyweight power, and we do a disservice to ourselves by thinking we are.
We can make inroads by acting like the middleweight power that we are, and not making it policy to insult our largest trading partner at the drop of a hat!
 
2Cdo,

Hmm, re-read what I wrote, not seeing where I said our citizens shouldn't voice their displeasure...I did say...question the intent and policies all you want.  I did also say what peeved me was the comments about Canada being irrelevant in the global community.  Perhaps what I should have said then was "feel free to live in one of the Relevant countries.

Alot of men and women have served in war and peacetime in Canada, some have laid their lives down very recently, and I think calling our commitment to the mission in Afghanistan irrelevant is a bad move, particularly on this website.  I have lots of buddies getting ready to start trng for TF1-07...I hope that what they do isn't considered "irrelevant".

I remember being told once "there are 2 types of people.  Ones that are part of the solution, and ones that are part of the problem".  All the, IMO, crap that Scipio said made me think he/she sure isn't part of the solution.

As far as "citizens voicing their opinions", I hope I never see the day in Canada where they CAN'T voice their opinions...and where I can't voice my own back...particularly if I think their opinion cheapens the image of Canada, or degrads the sacrifice of those who make it that folks like Scipio actually still have the ability to rant like he/she did, while never having the gonads to put it on the line and defend the freedom enjoyed in Canada and countries like ours.

It's the wonderful ability in great countries such as ours to be able to "agree to disagree" while still being on the (hopefully) same team.

:salute:
 
You don't seem to appreciate Canada the way others do, using words like "irrelevant" to describe your country.  If so unhappy as a Canadian, please, feel free to leave.  I hear there are some job openings in Sudan, Afghanistan, or Iraq that might be of interest to you.

I don't feel unhappy living in Canada, I don't want to leave, and I don't pine to live in war torn countries.  You came to all these conclusions based on the word 'irrelvant'?

I say agian, I was talking about interational politics, power politics, gun barrel politics.  You made it out as if I thought this country is intrinsically irrelvant, which of course makes no sense.  Please ask questions if you don't understand my comments.



Stephen Harper's goals for Canada are refreshing and wanting to be more of a presence around the world militarily will ensure that my grandfathers don't roll over in their graves wondering what the heck they fought overseas for for four long years.

I hear you loud and clear.  Harpers government is a nice change.  Being a conservative in a liberal country is not easy.  So it's nice to see it is possible to win over voters.

Really? Fundamentalism, including the Christian type preaches the same thing.

I can't believe I missed this post, any way it's not the same thing.  Fundamentalist Christians lobby the government and stage protests like any one else.  Christian dogma can not be used as a means to try people in court.  But if you want to draw some comparrisons then go for it.  I can't see where you are going with that statement.
 
Scipio said:
I can't believe I missed this post, any way it's not the same thing.  Fundamentalist Christians lobby the government and stage protests like any one else.  Christian dogma can not be used as a means to try people in court.  But if you want to draw some comparrisons then go for it.  I can't see where you are going with that statement.

In an earlier post you had stated:

"While Western people feel the need to keep an open mind towards difference, fundamental Islam preaches the opposite, so right there we have nothing in common."

Fundamentalists, regardless of religion, at least in my own personal experience do not have "an open mind towards difference."
 
Back
Top