POLL: Do you think Canadian soldiers should be in Afghanistan?

[Shiraz]

Can I go back to the original question?

Yes, they are there and need to be there.

 

[gun runner]

To this question I will say " yes " everyday of the week, and twice on Sundays !! Our soldiers are the best example of what we represent in  in terms of national pride and resolve!! Give'em hell troops!! Ubique

 

[MCpl. Burwell]

Canada should definetaly be in Afghanistan. If Canadian soldiers do not protect us abroad, the War on "Terror" will come to Canada. Canada definetaly has to be in Afghanistan. 

 

[Haggis]

Here is our friend's quote

"dumb f***** canadians. and if ya try to burn our white house down now, the canadians will be crushed by us Americans. and frig you to the dumb american dude talking crap about us Ricans. we don't care if u like us, in the United State f*** us Latinos are the fastest growing race in the world! so befor you talk s*** white trash read facts. America is a great country and I love it here, f*** dumb white trash who talks s*** about Ricans or latins in general. go back to your preppy hood and hide behind your garbage can like you always do. dumb white bitches.
and also canada sucks! u will never be able to beat America!"]/quote]

Clearly, he missed the 2004 Winter Olympics.

 

[Niteshade]

Get over it kiddies. Back to the TOPIC.

I most whole heartedly believe we should be in Afghanistan. Helping people is what we do, and by removing the Taliban from power we do some great things. We help the afghan people live lives free of fear, and give them new rights and freedoms they would not have enjoyed. We also eliminate the support system the Al Queda have enjoyed. By eliminating these threats, Canada is also better off.

I think we should be there, and I think we are doing a great job at it to boot.

Nites

 

[gaspasser]

1. I guess our infamous US'er missed the point that 65 countries lost civilians on 9-11 in theTowers.
2. I fully believe our troops should be in A'stan.  We got pulled in by the states and when they pulled out, we stepped up to the plate and covered thier tracks.  Originally, we were there for humanitarian aid, only to discover that we needed to defend the aid and people recieving it.  If we pulled out now, when the people need us there, we would not be fulfilling our "peacekeeper" attitude and worldly reputation.   

 

[PAT-Platoon]

Hmm, while certainly this question is a fine one, however I wish they were more specific in their questioning. Many Canadians are opposed to the War in Afghanistan because of the way our troops are being employed, not just for the mere fact that we are there. So with that in mind I am not surprised with the results. I know many friends who are against the War, however they would see nothing wrong with a different deployment of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan is a different way so even though they are anti-war, they would vote Yes on this poll.

However, granted there are those who say we shouldn't be there period so I guess then this poll has its purposes.

-C/D

 

[2 Cdo]

Hmm, while certainly this question is a fine one, however I wish they were more specific in their questioning. Many Canadians are opposed to the War in Afghanistan because of the way our troops are being employed, not just for the mere fact that we are there. So with that in mind I am not surprised with the results. I know many friends who are against the War, however they would see nothing wrong with a different deployment of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan is a different way so even though they are anti-war, they would vote Yes on this poll.

However, granted there are those who say we shouldn't be there period so I guess then this poll has its purposes.

-C/D

And how pray tell, would you're obviously mis-informed friends, employ the CF differently? Would they have issues with troops defending themselves? Would they allow our troops to even carry weapons?

Many Canadians are opposed because they live sheltered lives and are blissfully unaware of world affairs, methinks your friends belong to that particular faction. :

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

They need to read this.
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/81259/post-780873.html#msg780873

 

[2 Cdo]

They need to read this.
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/81259/post-780873.html#msg780873

By why let facts interfer with a pre-concieved idea based on emotions and ignorance of the "real' situation on the ground. 8)

 

[PAT-Platoon]

And how pray tell, would you're obviously mis-informed friends, employ the CF differently? Would they have issues with troops defending themselves? Would they allow our troops to even carry weapons?

Many Canadians are opposed because they live sheltered lives and are blissfully unaware of world affairs, methinks your friends belong to that particular faction. :

Well I cannot speak for them, but my various friends live far from sheltered lives and are actually very aware of world affairs. Just because you do not agree with someone does not mean its proper to demean them or assume that they are simply misinformed. Its very simple, and black and white to paint someone as misinformed instead of asking and discerning why they hold their particular beliefs. As for the attack on the girl with acid, I'm sorry but even with the tragedy and abhorrent acts such as those, using such microlevel "evidence" is simply not proper. Its manipulative of people's initial emotions are constantly used to evoke knee-jerk reactions. While such a disgusting attack like that is naturally so very moving and powerful, to us it to justify force escalation and force projection in another country is unethical.

What is better is to use rational and logical arguments, which there are many, for the mission in Afghanistan. Emotional cases like that as arguments are manipulative and are simply designed to get a rise out of people so that almost anything could be justified. By using rational and logical constraints we can apply proper force projection and retaliation. Emotional outbursts only lead to heavy handed retaliation with no regard for greater concerns.

-C/D

 

[Monsoon]

Its very simple, and black and white to paint someone as misinformed instead of asking and discerning why they hold their particular beliefs.

I may be mistaken, but I believe he asked you three questions, none of which you saw fit to answer. You are being a troll.

 

[stealthylizard]

they should be in iraq. they need to join our fight against terror... if canada got hit as hard as our twin towers did in one of their famous areas, they would be asking everyone to join em in the fight against terror..... United we stand

I know this is dated, but the US isn't the only country to ever be hit by terrorism.  Air India bombing, FLQ, attack on Cuban embassy in Ottawa, several bombings of Cuban trade delgations in Canada, Cuban official killed by explosion in Montreal, Croatian Freedom fighters hijacking a plane, Squamish 5, Marc Lepine (serial killer or terrorism?), Iranian embassy in Ottawa.

 

[mjc_1812]

While such a disgusting attack like that is naturally so very moving and powerful, to us it to justify force escalation and force projection in another country is unethical.

While using a single isolated case may be "unethical", the fact is that attacks like these continue to happen throughout Afghanistan. Albeit maybe not as heinous as acid on people, but nonetheless, the Taliban continue to blow up schools and have resorted back to "terror" tactics to scare the population back into supporting them. These tactics are reprehensible and should (and CAN) definitely be used as justification as a need to increase security. If we cannot maintain the level of safety in the eyes of the Afghan population, who is to say that they won't soon see us as obsolete?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

C\D,

You've been warned once about lecturing the members here. You do not have the level of expertise, nor the real world experience to presume yourself their better. You won't be warned again.

The members here have been more than patient listening to you espouse your 'theories' as opposed to you taking heed of their real world, tried out, physical solutions. You talk about a fair exchange of ideas, and refuse to answer questions put to you, probably because the best answers don't fit your stance. Yet you have no problem belabouring the same points from yourself and your faceless friends. We will not take at face value your vouching for their experience. They might as well be nothing more than your classmates or members of the Young Communists of Canada for that matter. In short, quit regurgitating the same old tired stance, answer the questions put to you, as the members here answer and debate yours and back your stance with solid, tangible research, not something your classmates have discussed.

You've been given more than enough time to get used to the way we do things here. If you continue to push the members buttons without changing tact, your time here is going to be very limited.

You're on the clock.

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[pict]

  This question is really annoying.  Of course we should be there.  And if one more person asks if I'm going to Iraq, i'm going to snap!

 

[PAT-Platoon]

While using a single isolated case may be "unethical", the fact is that attacks like these continue to happen throughout Afghanistan. Albeit maybe not as heinous as acid on people, but nonetheless, the Taliban continue to blow up schools and have resorted back to "terror" tactics to scare the population back into supporting them. These tactics are reprehensible and should (and CAN) definitely be used as justification as a need to increase security. If we cannot maintain the level of safety in the eyes of the Afghan population, who is to say that they won't soon see us as obsolete?

Fair enough, I am perfectly fine with that sort of argument but more than not I see people simply posting that link and using it as an isolated case of evidence, and not explaining that these sort of attacks are on the rise or whatever else. Your argument however is fair

nd how pray tell, would you're obviously mis-informed friends, employ the CF differently? Would they have issues with troops defending themselves? Would they allow our troops to even carry weapons?

My apologies, I missed these questions. Well, it depends on who you ask. A few friends would simply wish that our troops would be withdrawn, another few would employ the CF outside the current structure it's employed in (i.e. no longer in command of Kandahar, and not in aggressive operations). Basically I believe they wish that the Combat Brigade we have there would be pulled out an we would only utilize basically PRTs instead. I don't think they would have an issue with troops defending themselves, though I assume under some standard of ROEs that espouses limited responses (I believe the Green party for instance wishes to ban airstrikes except in the most extreme cases). As for carrying weapons, yes I assume they would allow that. I think you are trying to paint people who are against the war as "hippies" or something else but many against the war simply wish it was fought in a different way, not in absolutist terms withdrawn.

Though to be fair, just because I missed your questions doesn't mean I'm a troll. Your questions are aimed at my friends who are not on this board, you cannot ask me to read their mind, and I stated that I cannot speak for them in my other post. Still though, some of my friends yes are "mis-informed" but others have the same information as we all here have and simply have reached a different conclusion. I think it's important some people understand that other people reach different conclusions based on the same evidence, and it may be obvious to you but not for others.

-C/D

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Fair enough, I am perfectly fine with that sort of argument but more than not I see people simply posting that link and using it as an isolated case of evidence, and not explaining that these sort of attacks are on the rise or whatever else. Your argument however is fair

My apologies, I missed these questions. Well, it depends on who you ask. A few friends would simply wish that our troops would be withdrawn, another few would employ the CF outside the current structure it's employed in (i.e. no longer in command of Kandahar, and not in aggressive operations). Basically I believe they wish that the Combat Brigade we have there would be pulled out an we would only utilize basically PRTs instead. I don't think they would have an issue with troops defending themselves, though I assume under some standard of ROEs that espouses limited responses (I believe the Green party for instance wishes to ban airstrikes except in the most extreme cases). As for carrying weapons, yes I assume they would allow that. I think you are trying to paint people who are against the war as "hippies" or something else but many against the war simply wish it was fought in a different way, not in absolutist terms withdrawn.

Though to be fair, just because I missed your questions doesn't mean I'm a troll. Your questions are aimed at my friends who are not on this board, you cannot ask me to read their mind, and I stated that I cannot speak for them in my other post. Still though, some of my friends yes are "mis-informed" but others have the same information as we all here have and simply have reached a different conclusion. I think it's important some people understand that other people reach different conclusions based on the same evidence, and it may be obvious to you but not for others.

-C/D

So simply stated, you don't have a plan, or explanation. Simply a difference of opinion, of which you can't convince people here to accept. Ergo, never the twain shall meet. You have now expended your ammo. Time to withdraw. You're offering nothing new and creating a circular information flow, which has been repeated too often. Thanks for coming out. If you have nothing further to offer, please refrain from posting and using our bandwidth.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

What is it about Military operations that make groups of fools think that they are competent or qualified to comment on the conduct of battle?

Cog-Dis, let me ask you this:

Do you walk around building sites, bugging engineers or architects that, in your opinion, they used too little or too much structural steel?  How about doctors- do you question how many stitches your doctor puts in your arm when you are cut?  How about your pharmacist? Or Dentist?

Basically, I call into question the education/training/experience of you or your friends to comment intelligently on the conduct of military operations- you have not, in the course of your posts to date, indicated that you have the first clue how and why we fight as a professional military force.  Therefore, your "opinion" on how we do things is as valueless to most of us here as your opinion on cancer treatment protocols would be to an oncologist.

I would like to close this comment by noting that, in no way do I deny that you or your friends to have a right to an opinion on whether we should be in Afghanistan in the first place.  This is purely a political question and, I believe anyway, need not necessarily be subject to a logical or even informed opinion.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

but others have the same information as we all here have and simply have reached a different conclusion. I think it's important some people understand that other people reach different conclusions based on the same evidence, and it may be obvious to you but not for others.

So these friends of yours have multiple tours under their belts,...cause most of the people you are arguing poorly with have.