Wilber

Britain pretty much controlled Afghan foreign affairs from 1880 til 1919.

Why risk Canadian lives when we can risk American lives instead.

That's a good one. By the way, it isn't the British Commonwealth any more, just the Commonwealth. Has been for years.

Afghanistan is unwinnable for us, it has never been conquered by a non native force, the Russians failed with a hell of alot more firepower and far more brutal tactics then we could realistically employ. As for the former Taliban fighters that are supposedly the ones we are in conflict with they do have support, huge support in fact from both inside Pakistan and a significant portion of the Muslim world through Pakistan. The essential reason we can't win in Afghanistan because we are making no progress and they can sustain this situation indefinitely, we cannot. They don't need to "win" all they need to do is not give up fighting, and when they are willing to suffer 10 deaths for every one they inflict well lets just said sooner or later we will give up. Since when were we trying to conquer Afghanistan? The British fought three wars in Afghanistan and the last two were successful. They didn't conquer and colonise Afghanistan but that was never their intent. They were successful in influencing Afghan foreign policy in their favour which was their intention and is a large part of the reason we are there now. They to were fighting regimes, not the country.

Tradition and honour have never been big political priorities.

That would be true if it weren't that 2 commando was a unit on the verge of collaspse. The discipline problems were festering and any operation they were in would have been preordained to fail. That being said, the reg't probably shouldn't have been disbanded, even if airborne is somewhat anachronistic......the training they received is no being given to the other 3 reg'ts ofr the line as well as JTF.....nothing has been wasted. About six years ago I was working with an American reservist who spent some time in Somalia. They had a pretty high opinion of the airborne although he didn't know anything about their internal problems. When I told him the regiment had been disbanded his reaction was "NO WAY". He couldn't believe it. Let's face it military units who's primary function was killing people were not in fashion back then either with the government or the people. It was a great political decision at the time. It was politically correct and instead of actually having to fix a problem it allowed the government to cut back even more on the military. Unfortunately we are probably paying for that decision now.

Amen

Did you read the article? The rate of death of soldiers by size of deployment per month is at the historical peak. That's what makes it a military disaster (and not yet, perhaps, a national disaster, since the number of dead by size of population is very low). They are comparing a few months in Afghanistan (one month in particular) to wars that lasted years. Casualty rates rise and fall depending on what is going on. The Canadian component of Bomber Command had close to 60% killed in WWII. Only the Kamikaze's and U Boats had a higher casualty rate. The Canadian rate in WW1 which these guys don't mention, was closer to 10% killed for that war. The 1.3% in Afghanistan lately is certainly higher than one would want to see over the long term but these guys are definitely selective when it comes to choosing their numbers. The Conservatives are making the softwood lumber agreement a confidence vote. Didn't the Bloc just say they would support it?

Actually they were victims of a concerted attempt to exterminate every one of them which didn't come far from succeeding. And how much do Jews try to extract from the UN or Liberal governments as "compensation"? None that I know of, I just thought the use of the word "injustices" was a bit of an understatement.

The bloodiest campaign in Canadian military history? These idiots should learn a little of their own country's history. Maybe you should to.

It is my understanding that this particular gun is a restricted weapon requiring the same permit and background checks as a hand gun. How did this loony get one?

Actually they were victims of a concerted attempt to exterminate every one of them which didn't come far from succeeding.

This one got me going because I've always assumed it was a statutory holiday. It is, sort of. Turns out it is a Federal holiday (I guess that means for Federal Employees) and is only recognized as a Statutory Holiday in BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan and all the Territories. Wow, every year we Westerners watch all the politicians in front of the War Memorial in Ottawa and it isn't even a stat holiday in that Province. What's the matter with you Eastern SOB's, that's pathetic.

I think you would have whatever someone else chose to give you.

The population of China is 1.4 billion, not 4 billion. The population of India is just under 1.1 billion and it is a democracy. It shares the same democratic heritage as we do which you will have to blame on those nasty old Brit imperialists. Not all societies are destined to become democratic.

Armed security guards on campus, probably. More people commonly bearing arms, possibly in this case but not in general. Are you the one volunteering to go against someone carrying a semi automatic rifle carrying only pepper spray? You are a lot braver than I.

My brain usually crawls into a little dark place and hides when the subject comes up. It won't allow itself to dwell on it. But now that you bring it up if the NDP did somehow form a minority, it would have to grow up in a hell of a hurry or only last until the next vote in Parliament. Now an NDP majority. that is a truly frightening thought.

I could care less if they blow themselves up, what's important is they don't try to blow you or me up.

Says who? No Islamic society is static and changes over time. Iran is a different place today than it was when Kohemeni took over. It took hundreds of years for England to evolve from a feudal theocracy society to the democracy it is today. Why should Iranian society be expected to change over night? We have to deal with things as they are not how they may or not be hundreds of years from now. China is a society that is far older than ours but as yet hasn't developed into a democracy.

Why does that make a difference? At certain level we are no different from Islamists - we have our religion (democracy) and we want all other peoples on earth to adopt that religion and are willing to go to war to ensure it. We have no Gods to appoint leaders so we rely on 'the people' to choose them instead. We are so absolutly convinced in the righteousness of our beliefs that we cannot even comprehend how someone cannot see why our 'religion' is superior to anything they have now. The biggest difference is that under our system we can have this debate because we aren't so absolutely convinced of the righteousness of our beliefs. Most of us are capable of modifying or changing our beliefs if presented with a good enough argument. That's why our governments come an go peacefully. There is no such opportunity with these people.

I was watching an interview of John Manley on the 11th. He said the difference between Canada and the US is that the US is living on September the 12th and much of Canada is still stuck on the 10th.

If you want to use "only'" to describe the difference between any group that tries to advance it's cause by peaceful, legal means and and one that tries to do it by murder and fear, I guess that would be true.

What does this mean, they are only heroes if they win? Leonidas and the three hundred weren't heroes?

Only the recent past, up until the sixties we were quite capable of pulling our weight and did so. It wasn't until we got bigger and wealthier that the rot set in.

From Spartacus.schoolnet The last chance to avert WWII was thrown away at Munich.