Jean_Poutine

Catchme claims that tanks are being used to smash through Afghan buildings and such, but, of course, doesn't support that assertion with anything, and you say that the tanks won't be effective. Here, too, I think pictures help to clear things up:Tank driving on paved road Tanks on gravel road Tank driving through dirt in open area Tanks out in open dirt area Tanks on gravel road up in hills Tank driving on dirt road in Operation Baaz Tsuka (AKA Operation Falcon's Summit) Tank and LAV III observation post at Ma'Sum Ghar Also, from what I've read, the Leopards have more powerful engines than the Soviet tanks thus giving them an advantage. Obviously, there are limits, but I think by looking at the surroundings in the pictures, it's clear to see that there are areas in which they are suitable. I think the government should replace the Leopards with Leopard 2A6s or Challenger 2s, G-Wagons with RG-31s, phase out the Bisons, and consider giving some of the old equipment to the Afghan army once replaced. I also think the Canadian government should seriously consider buying some Buffalos. It's the American response to IEDs. Besides having good armor and a v-shape hull to deflect a blast away from the vehicle, it also has a 30 foot robotic arm that can be used to clear threats from a safe distance. The US is already using them in Afghanistan and Iraq. The video in the link shows a huge explosion going off next to one, and everyone inside survived. Also, I've seen plenty of pictures of Afghan kids surrounding soldiers and their vehicles, and they don't look intimidated at all. LAV IIIs aren't exactly small either, and they don't keep the tanks in the city. They drove them through, at first, to let any idiots Taliban in the area know that they are there, and then stationed them in the surrounding area. Here are some photos of Afghan kids around Canadian soldiers: Afghan kids with soldier on patrol Afghan kids drinking bottled water by soldiers and their vehicles While I'm at it: Canadians and USAID meet with Afghans A member of the Kandahar PRT with kids playing soccer in a soccer stadium. Imagine that, a soccer game instead of executions in a soccer stadium. A nice stack of wheat, supplied by the US, in Kandahar - dated Dec 19, 2006. You know, the aid that some people claim doesn't exist. This is your opinion of course.The majority of people that are treated by Canadian medical facilities are Afghan civilians and soldiers, and yes, I can provide a source to verify that if requested. In contrast, the Taliban don't care who gets hurt when they attack and make no effort to help the wounded. I don't think that fact is lost on everyone. The idea that everyone thinks the same way because of something like ethnicity I simply reject. It's a gross generalization.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words. Case in point: Click here and here and you can see Canadian forces trying to save children that were wounded in an attack that killed four Canadian soldiers. Do the Taliban make such efforts? Do they give a sh*t that their attacks on NATO wound/kill civilians? No and no. I didn't even have to get to the third paragraph to see that the truth is that you are partisan and uncomfortable with a fact that's been pointed out about the party you support. The fact that you will call Jean Chretien and Paul Martin by their proper names but won't do with same for Stephen Harper is a dead give away. Harper was the only leader willing to restore what the Liberals cut in 1993, and that has nothing to do with the US or Bush. Also, while the anti-American, partisan left-wingers want to accuse Harper of getting more involved in combat for Bush while they praise the Dutch for having the right approach, here's a video to watch: http://dump.geenstijl.nl/mediabase/6735/a588a9e3/index.html They are involved in the same sort of combat as Canadians.

The Russians didn't have the same mandate and support that NATO has, and the equipment they had was nowhere near as good as what NATO has. Even the Leopard tanks are better than what the Soviets used. Meanwhile, Afghan forces continue to grow and the Taliban lose the support of moderates by killing civilians in attacks and torturing/killing them for cooperating with NATO. Personally, I think that'll make it pretty clear who the real enemy is.

After suffering reading through Catchme's tripe posts, I would break it down into quotes and reply, but that's already been done. A few things though: What is obvious to most people seems to be lost on Catchme: Afghanistan was already one of the poorest countries in the world with one of the worst records on human rights - particularly womens rights. NATO did not create those conditions. The mission in Afghanistan, however, is partly an attempt to do something about those conditions. There are 37 countries involved in military operations and 60 countries, as well as UN agencies, involved in development. That is just a fact, and you're welcome to check it. With regards to what Canada does, you should do some reading at the CIDA web site. Also, you should read about the Kandahar PRT, which Canada has extended to 2009. The mission, however, isn't simply one of reconstruction. There are seven UN resolutions that authorize the military operation there which state that "Afghanistan is still a threat to international peace and security." Again, you're welcome to check to see that what I've said is correct. If you're too lazy to do so, I can explain to you where you can find the specific resolutions. The point about tanks is moot. Before there were tanks in Afghanistan, when they ran into situations where they needed more firepower, they called in air strikes. The fighting in Operation Medusa was heavy and that was before they had tanks. In contrast, not a shot was fired in Operation Falcon's Summit and that operation involved tanks. No, you just blame them for pretty much everything that is wrong and omit anything positive, and what that is worthy of is contempt.

First of all, I'm not so sure that coming under rocket attacks in Afghanistan is the best way to get a photo op as you suggest. Second, he spoke out against Pakistans plans to use mines, which is consistent with Canadian policy given the Ottawa landmine treaty.Speaking of mines, while Afghanistan is one of the most heavily mined countries in the world, roughly 1/3 of the millions of mines in Afghanistan have been cleared thanks to coalition forces that you show no respect for. Perhaps, you think it would be better if they didn't do dangerous work like that and let civilians get their legs blown off. Four Canadian soldiers were killed in one battle during Operation Medusa because NATO tried to minimize the risk to civilians. They dropped pamphlets ahead of time to give warning, and called off air strikes. As a result, Canadian soldiers walked right into an ambush. That could have been prevented if they didn't give advance warning and used air strikes to soften the area up first, but that'd mean higher risk to civilians, and people like you would bitch about it. Effort was made to minimize the risk to civilians at increased risk to the soldiers, and you STILL bitch. Funny how people of your ilk jumped at the Opportunity to call Operation Falcon's Summit a repeat of Operation Medusa, but since it wasn't, it gets omitted.

Since you won't do critical analysis of what you read for yourself, I'll do it for you.First, it's shoddy journalism to lean heavily on one source as this article does. Second, the author asserts that most of the 36 soldiers killed last year were killed in fighting, but that isn't true. A quick check at CBC, which keeps reports of all people that are wounded and killed, shows that 17 were killed by mines/IEDs and suicide attacks, 5 by accidents and friendly fire, and 14 in combat. I don't like using statistics much because we're talking about people not numbers, but it's important to be accurate in order to understand it and minimize the risk in the future. For example, using Chinooks to fly troops and supplies around would reduce the risk of mines/IEDs and suicide attacks, which as you can see, is the highest risk, and where it is necessary to use ground vehicles, make sure they have very good armor. There is a reason why the troops have nicknamed highway 1 "Ambush Alley". Canada is buying Chinooks, but they won't be ready for a few years. However, in the mean time, the government could try to buy some used helicopters or lease some, yet I don't hear anything about that. So, if you're concerned about saving lives, you may want to raise that issue rather than going around acting like chicken little screaming: the sky is falling! Also worth noting is that the deaths of 4 soldiers in Operation Medusa may have been preventable. According to an article from the Globe & Mail, the area that their platoon went into had pamphlets warning the Taliban and civilians that NATO forces were coming. Also, air strikes were supposed to be used to soften the area up before they went in, but that was called off. So, they went in light, without any air strikes ahead of time, to fight an enemy that had advance warning. I would say that that's a f*ck up on the part of NATO planners. In Operation Falcon's Summit, pamphlets were dropped once again to give warning, but Canadian forces went in heavy with tanks, LAV IIIs and howitzers. Critics argued that it showed the futility of the mission because they have to keep doing bloody operations like Operation Medusa, but they didn't have to fire a shot. The lesson here, and I think it can also be applied to the military budget as well, is that it's better to have it and not need it than it is to need it and not have it. Third, the author uses a favorite talking point of critics: "Opium poppy production in the country reached a record...." This is true, but it is also true that poppy production has declined in some provinces. Rather than making a blanket statement about poppy production in Afghanistan as a whole, it seems to me that it would make more sense to see if the methods used to reduce production in some provinces could be applied to provinces where it's a major problem. Fourth, Pakistan is a problem, but some people have a tendency to exagerate it as though a sea of ten foot tall Taliban are about to flood the border. Former NATO commander General James Jones said in an interview that while it's difficult to put a number on it, he estimates that hard core taliban are in the thousands and moderates that do it for money are in the tens of thousands. So, that's not a million man army as some would like to suggest. I do agree that Pakistan should be pressured, but just because we don't read it in a headline doesn't mean it's not happening. The US has helped Pakistan financially with billions of dollars since 9-11, and they have troops at risk along the border too. They are going to want to see a return on their investment. Recently, Pakistan has been coming out in the press and talking about what they are doing, and announcing plans to do more. Now I know people are skeptical of what the Pakistani government says, and I agree with that, but I think it's revealing that Pakistan is talking to the media about it. Generally, governments do that when they are feeling pressure. It's also likely that the Taliban has lost the support of some people because they are killing civilians. If losing support when civilians are killed is a problem for NATO, it stands to reason that the same would apply for the Taliban, and the Taliban are far worse when it comes to endangering civilians. Some people also talk about ethnic groups as though everyone from one ethnic group is going to think the same way, but that, again, is a generalization. I'll wrap up by saying that when faced with a huge problem there are generally two types of reactions: 1) getting overwhelmed and saying it's impossible 2) taking a step back, and breaking it down into smaller more manageable pieces I'd say the people that go around talking about Afghanistan being doomed fall into category 1. Acknowledging problems, but breaking them down into detail and offering some constructive criticism is helpful. Simply using rhetoric like "doomed to fail" doesn't help anyone -- except maybe the enemy.

Canadian Brigadier-General David Fraser was in command of southern Afghanistan until recently when it was turned over to the Dutch. There are 10 UN resolutions -- all available on the UN web site -- regarding Afghanistan. Also, there is no shortage of disinformation and misinformation on the internet. Source checking is an important part of doing research.

And Mr. "Respect" Martin, put them in this danger. Harper's only decision was to extend the mission. If Martin really cared about our forces, he would have thought long and hard, about whom participated in the rise of Islamic Fundamentalism in Afghanistan. It wasn't us. He should have asked, why should we be covering this turf, while the US diverated troops and money to Iraq? Regardless, we are there, I disagree with being there. We have two more years on this extension. Don't go blaming Harper for these 38 deaths. There is plenty to go around. The important thing is to get the mission right, and be able to get out of Afghanistan with a stable government and our heads held high. Something the US will not be able to achieve in Iraq. Maybe they will refocus, drop the Rumfeld Doctrine in Afghanistan, and perhaps, those deaths won't be in Vain. It's too late for blaming. We need to be successful. I agree with the part about getting the mission right, but I reject the anti-American tinge to your post. The policy behind the Iraq war was more than a decade in the making by a small group that thought that the US should have used its military power to spread American influence after the fall of the Soveit Union. They also felt that the US should have gone after Saddam in Desert Storm. However, the problem for them was that Bill Clinton was elected. So, they went into think tanks where they continued to work on their view of what US policy should be, which lead to PNAC. They then resurfaced in George Bush's administration. Even if Al Gore was President, they'd still be sitting in think tanks waiting for their opportunity. One good thing about the Iraq war is that those people have discredited themselves. However, to say that this is representative of the US as a whole is a gross generalization. For example, Scott Ritter was one of the most accurate voices on everything that has unfolded in Iraq before the war even started, and he's American. Regardless of what people think of his political views, Dennis Kucinich was against it from the begining and wants the troops out of Iraq ASAP. There are a wide range of opinions on it, but there's also growing regret by people that supported it initially. Your attitude towards Afghanistan is that we are where we are and that it's best to move forward. Well, Americans may feel the same way about Iraq. Americans are fully aware of the tough situation they're in. Personally, I don't believe in kicking people when they're down. Therefore, I don't see the point in rubbing it in their faces at every opportunity. I hope for the sake of Iraqi civilians and the soldiers serving there that they can find a way to bring some stability to the country. As for Afghanistan, the Americans still have about 11,000 troops there, which is far more than any other country. Rather than wagging a finger at the US and telling them what to do or not to do all the time, it would be better for other countries to step up by properly funding their armed forces so that they aren't so reliant on the US. In this regard, Canada's doorstep isn't clean; therefore, Canadians should think about that before talking about Americans. I respect the people in the Canadian military and they do their jobs well, but the problems with budget cuts are well known. I would argue that the excellent reputation that the Canadian armed forces have is despite the government not because of it.

I would agree with you if the expectation was that it should remain at 15% or even 5%, but it was cut from 2% to 1.1% to eliminate a deficit that's long gone not because the military doesn't need the money. Canadians often take pride in calling themselves peacekeepers, but during the time in which peacekeeping was most needed, Canada was scaling back and expecting the military to do more with less. Here is what a soldier said about it: We have had more than $70 billion in federal surplus since that cut was made, and international threats have not gone away. Why continue to expect them to do more with less? I pointed out the international support and legality of the mission vs. the Iraq war which it is often compared to.

True. The Liberals don't even have an election platform ready yet. I've read that Bob Rae will be working on it, and that should be interesting.However, there was a recent CTV poll that I found a bit surprising: I liked having minority governments too, but it's a trade off between stability and accountability. I'm not so sure that accountability would be lost if the Conservatives got a majority. They just spent 13 years in opposition, and I doubt they have any desire to return there. They may have had five priorities in the last election, but establishing themselves as a viable alternative to the Liberals again is also one of their priorities, and they won't achieve that by taking a hard right. In order to get the votes necessary for power, they will have to compromise on some things, but at least they'd be able to do more than they would be able to do in opposition. In contrast, I'm not so sure the Liberals have had enough of a time out to look at it that way. At any rate, considering that another election would likely result in another minority government, there's not much point in pressing for another election. However, if a party should get a majority, at least it won't be a coronation like the 90s.

I do have a problem with the Conservatives on some things. For instance, I've heard that they may make cuts to post-secondary eduction, which I think is the opposite of what needs to be done.However, I do support them 100% when it comes to other issues like increased military spending. As General James Jones, former commander of NATO, said, 2% of GDP for a military budget used to be the minimum and now it seems to be the ceiling for some countries. During WWII, Canada spent 15% of GDP on defence. That was then scaled down to 5% during the Korean war, and from there, it was reduced to approximately 2.2% up until 1993. In 93, the Liberals cut it to 1.1% to eliminate a deficit that has been gone for a decade now and has since been replaced with billions in surplus. The roughly $17 billion in military spending that the Conservatives announced is to replace aging equipment and doesn't address the regular budget. For Canada to restore the regular military budget, it'd have to increase military spending by about $13 billion every year. In other words, the entire $13 billion that the Conservatives put down on the debt recently would have to be put towards the military budget, and that would have to be sustained every year without creating a deficit, but they've already stated that they'll use surplus money to pay down the debt. So, where will the money come from? The answer is that it will have to come from other areas, which will probably make some people kick and scream, but unlike some of those other areas, defence spending IS a federal responsibility. Some people will, no doubt, call the Conservatives war mongers for spending more on the military, but the reality is that it's just bringing military spending back to what is the normal level for Canada. I mean, 2.2% GDP is still small by US standards. If the Liberals get back in power, this problem is not likely to be addressed. So, no one party is going to take care of everything, but before there's a change of government, I would like to see the Conservatives address what the Liberals won't. Technically, it's a Chapter VII Peace Enforcement mission. Unlike peacekeeping, peace enforcement doesn't have neutrality and allows the use of force. Furthermore, Resolution 1707 (which you can find on the UN web site) states: The words "authorizes and "all necessary measures" is UN speak for authorizing military force. The UN doesn't openly talk about authorizing military force. UN resolution 678 (available on the UN web site), which authorized Desert Storm, used the words "authorizes" and "all necessary means." Being all inclusive, it includes military force.In contrast, with regards to the Iraq war, Resolution 1441 (again, you can find it on the UN web site) used the words "serious consequences". That's deliberately vague. The US and Brits wanted it to have weight, and thus the words "serious consequences," but what does that mean? Other members of the Security Council said that they were concerned about "hidden triggers" for war, and did not want that to be a resolution authorizing war. Thus it was intended that the Security Council would determine what the "serious consequences" would be if Iraq was found to be in violation. It's not, however, all inclusive like "all means necessary" with the word "authorizes". When the US could not get a second resolution, they tried to argue that resolution 1441 is tied to resolution 678, and thus they still had authorization without a second resolution. However, resolution 678 authorized the use of force to liberate Kuwait more than a decade ago. So, that's stretching it a little. So, according to the United Nations -- NOT BUSH -- Afghanistan is a threat to international peace and security; therefore, the UN authorizes the military operation there. In addition to that, it's under NATO control not US control, and there are 37 countries involved in the military operation and 60 countries involved in development. So, how is that something that Canada should not be involved in? If you're concerned about the troops, you'll support the increased military spending. It includes such things as Chinooks, which would minimize the need for convoys, and most of the casualties come from attacks on convoys. As for what the troops think of the mission, I'm all ears. I read about it regularly, and comments that I've seen from troops show that they are determined. There may be some that disagree with it. Whenever you talk about a large group of people you shouldn't generalize and imply that they all have the same view. However, why don't we see them speaking out against it the way we've seen people from the US military criticizing the Iraq war? So, you'll have to excuse me if I don't take the word of some anonymous people on a political forum as the gospel truth.

There is a big difference between following international law and having caveats. For example, Canada signed and ratified the Ottawa Landmine Ban Treaty. On the other hand, the US and Russia have neither signed nor ratified it. It's also not just an issue of Canada not allowing prisoners to be tortured, but a debate about whether or not the Geneva Conventions should apply; thus bringing into it a matter of international law once again. In contrast, there is no law saying that forces cannot be called in as support where they are needed. It shouldn't come as a surprise that special forces do things that are not announced and may contradict the official line.

Looks like the numbers are evening out: Liberals (36%, -2 Points) And Conservatives (34%, +2 Points) http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=3308

No, I would prefer a mature debate about policy. You are right in that it was the Liberals that deployed troops to Kandahar and the Conservatives have since supported it. However, you cannot simply turn off any resistance to NATO like a lightswitch by 2007. It's important to understand what Kandahar is. It is the stronghold and birthplace of the Taliban. Regaining territory is not the objective of Operation Baaz Tsuka. They launched an information campaign first, and it's objective is more to serve as a deterrent as well as to sort out the hard-core fighters from the rest. Here are some quick facts: - Not only military operations are extended to 2009, but also the mandate for the PRT in Kandahar for the same length of time. - In total, Canadian aid to Afghanistan will be nearly $1 billion by 2011. - Harper allocated $310 million to development on top of the $250 million that the Liberals allocated for 2004-2009. http://w3.acdi-cida.gc.ca/CIDAWEB/acdicida...D-129153625-S6T - The battlegroup in Afghanistan makes up approximately 50% of available forces there (roughly 1200 out of about 2400). Based on those facts, how do you conclude that Canada is involved in combat at the expense of everything else? Security should be a key component of the operation however. Without it, it's pretty hard to get anything else done.

Afghanistan was a response to an attack whereas Iraq was a preemptive attack.America has lost more soldiers in Iraq than the entire Canadian force in Afghanistan. America is having a hard time getting the situation under control in Iraq with roughly 4 times the number of troops that NATO has in Afghanistan. Afghanistan was a failed state while Iraq was a state with a bad regime. The difference is that when you get rid of a bad regime, everything that's been suppressed is released, and that creates just the sort of chaotic conditions that extremists thrive in. On the other hand, there wasn't anything to release in Afghanistan as it was already loose, and if you have any doubt of that, all you have to do is look at 9-11. If you want to fight an effective 'war on terrorism,' it makes more sense to deal with areas in which they are already free to operate and deny them that rather than create more. Still want to compare Afghanistan to Iraq?

In your first couple paragraphs, you sounded like a reasonable person that has an understanding of what's going on. You then proceeded with partisan comments and a lame link to Bush who you, of course, insult. I can't speak for anyone else, but that just loses my attention. As for reconstruction and the like, how can you have that without security? So, what you're arguing is Canada should be like the countries that set caveats on what they will do and further undermine NATO efforts?

Should we ban Americans from our shores too? Think about your answer before you reply. Well they are making us use pasports now just to go cross border shopping. They are doing this because they said our immigration system is too weak and poeple in our country pose a threat to the US. Arar is a perfect example as well as the people from Canda who went to the US.. and, and on that fateful sunny morning, Flew the planes into the towers. Guyser? Explain two things: 1) How Arar is a threat to the US 2) How the 9-11 flights are connected to Canada

I also reject the assertion that Canadian forces are simply on seek and destroy missions. Keep in mind that the hard-core fighters are holding up development and have no respect for human life. As shown, however, pulling the trigger is not NATOs first choice.

By the same token, however, I think Canadians have an obligation to get informed. While it may help if the Prime Minister speaks about it more often, but the press covers it every day. All Canadians have to do is pay attention. If development is of key interest, I would suggest the CIDA web site would be a good place to start.

Harper's comments on this issue are also worth pointing out:

I think Lewis MacKenzie nails it:

I don't think it's particularly useful to argue semantics. I referred to the timeline in which it takes to stabilize a country. In both Bosnia and Afghanistan, Canadian forces have been involved in clearing mines and destroying munitions. So, there are similarities in some of the work that's being done. Also, 25 Canadians died in Bosnia. So, it wasn't without risk.The Afghanistan mission is not a peacekeeping mission, but it is not the same as major wars of the past. Canada spent over 15% of GDP on WWII, and today, a little more than 1% is spent on defence. Over a million Canadians served in WWII compared to roughly 14,000 in Afghanistan. I think you're being a bit disingenuous and melodramatic by comparing the two as if they're the same and saying that Afghanistan has lasted longer as such. What's magical about the number 2? I disagree with your evaluation of their job performance. Further, based on everything I've read, I'd say your opinion of Hillier puts you in a minority. What I can tell you with complete certainty is that the people that post on the army forums have better things to say about Hillier than Jack Layton. That doesn't exactly add weight to what you're saying. People say all kinds of things over the internet which may or may not be true. I've given you names and quotes. I can give you links to articles in which soldiers in Afghanistan give their opinions with their names on the record. I would also encourage you to post your argument that Layton has it right on the army forums. In fact, here's a three page thread about the opposition: http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php?topic=48373.0

April 1st would be better.

You make it sound as though Canada has been in Kandahar since 2001. There are relatively peaceful parts of the country. Other countries have been criticized for having their troops there instead of the south, remember? If you're going to argue semantics, even Kandahar cannot compare to the intensity of WW1 and WW2. To suggest that Aghanistan belongs in the same category as a world war and has been continuing longer with a high intesity of fighting the whole time is hyperbole.Here's what General Andrew Leslie had to say about the timeline in 2005: and here's what General Rick Hillier had to say recently about changing the focus of the mission:

I replied to what was already in the thread as it relates to Canadian policy and Afghanistan. If you're interested a discussion about whether or not Dion is clever, why did you make a lengthy post that has little to do with that?