Afghanistan

[jdobbin]

because Canada isn't up to putting in 1000 more troops? Sorta like the rest of NATO?

I think we could have more troops sent there if we upped their tour duty from 6 to 12 months or more. However, every time that scenario is raised, members of the Forces get quite angry.

In any event, this was a test of NATO's willingness to support the mission, not Canada's.

[AngusThermopyle]

because Canada isn't up to putting in 1000 more troops? Sorta like the rest of NATO?

Hmmm, lets see. Could it be because for many many years Canadians have not seen the need to spend money on the Forces, preferring to pump billions into many many social programs of a highly dubious nature? Or could it be because successive Governments have seen the Armed Forces as an ideal target for cut backs and downsizing? Maybe those factors have some bearing on the current situation.

As for NATO, well they are contributing. In fact I have a breakdown of all NATO troops in Afghanistan in a recent issue of Legion Magazine. I'll see if I can find it for you.

if we upped their tour duty from 6 to 12 months or more. However, every time that scenario is raised, members of the Forces get quite angry.

No shit Sherlock, do you wonder why? Obviously you have no idea as to what it is like to serve in such a theater for any length of time or you wouldn't even entertain such a notion. Not only does it exact a toll due to the stress of living such a life, it also compounds that stress through isolation from family members and all that is familiar. Add to that the fact that Canadians generally don't give a flying f*ck about the well being of our people upon their return and you may just start to understand why members do not relish the idea of 12 month tours.

Edited April 2, 2008 by AngusThermopyle

[Topaz]

Hmmm, lets see. Could it be because for many many years Canadians have not seen the need to spend money on the Forces, preferring to pump billions into many many social programs of a highly dubious nature? Or could it be because successive Governments have seen the Armed Forces as an ideal target for cut backs and downsizing? Maybe those factors have some bearing on the current situation.

As for NATO, well they are contributing. In fact I have a breakdown of all NATO troops in Afghanistan in a recent issue of Legion Magazine. I'll see if I can find it for you.

No shit Sherlock, do you wonder why? Obviously you have no idea as to what it is like to serve in such a theater for any length of time or you wouldn't even entertain such a notion. Not only does it exact a toll due to the stress of living such a life, it also compounds that stress through isolation from family members and all that is familiar. Add to that the fact that Canadians generally don't give a flying f*ck about the well being of our people upon their return and you may just start to understand why members do not relish the idea of 12 month tours.

Wait a minute Angus let be fair. The Liberals decided to pay off some the debt which was high and something had to give and the military was it and it was the least thing that would hurt Canadians. No one knew that the US would invaded two countries and Canada would get dragged into it. By doing so, the present Cons had a gift of many billions of surplus to which the country owes to the Libs. Now lets see how the Cons do as handling OUR money. There are 50,000 troops in Afghanistan and I think the US has either 25,000 or 35,000 of them.

[eyeball]

Hmmm, lets see. Could it be because for many many years Canadians have not seen the need to spend money on the Forces, preferring to pump billions into many many social programs of a highly dubious nature? Or could it be because successive Governments have seen the Armed Forces as an ideal target for cut backs and downsizing? Maybe those factors have some bearing on the current situation.

Perhaps Canadians approved of these cut-backs because they know war is the most dubious social program of all. The fact that we don't have the capacity to wage it should have been the first alarm bell ringing in your head. The second should have been the example that was set in Rwanda. War is just way to political now and you will always be held up by the machinations, deliberations and dithering of politicians. I've never been able to fathom why intelligent people would ever volunteer to get involved in any war under such conditions. And please spare me the crocodile tears about all the poor little children. There are millions elsewhere that could benefit from such sentiments and you wouldn't have to fire a single shot.

...Add to that the fact that Canadians generally don't give a flying f*ck about the well being of our people upon their return and you may just start to understand why members do not relish the idea of 12 month tours.

Why humiliate yourselves any farther? Get the hell out while you can. Its not your fight.

[AngusThermopyle]

My oh my, two posts to address. First, the cutbacks are nothing new, they began with a vengeance during Trudeau's first term as Prime Minister. Previously cut backs had occured but Trudeau with his well known loathing of the CAF really got the ball rolling.

As for little children. It appears the attitude is help little children elswhere and screw Canadian kids because after all they are just Canadian kids of serving members, and who gives a shit about those who serve Canada. Sure, the kids aren't starving, I guess in your mind that justifies depriving them of a parent for a year at a time with the strong possibility of them not coming home at all. Nice, just backs up what I said about Canadians not giving a shit about those who serve them.

Not our war, well if you believe in isolationism then I guess you're right. If you believe Al Quaeda and the Taliban are just a bunch of peachy keen people to have around then I guess you're right. If you believe that these groups being complicite in and directly involved in the killing of Canadians and our friends is no big deal then I guess you're right.

Personally I don't believe these things so in my view you're wrong.

Edited April 2, 2008 by AngusThermopyle

[White Doors]

because Canada isn't up to putting in 1000 more troops? Sorta like the rest of NATO?

Not being capable of doing that is not the same as not willing to.

[Topaz]

Today the government officially announced that Canada has the 1000 troops from...US. Harper knew this weeks ago and I did report it on this forum that it would be the US because the US doesn't want France in the south. So when Layton asked Harper yesterday if he would pull out of Afghanistan if we didn't got the troops he knew then he would! BTW, tonight in a vote, the Cons were defeated over the idea of lowering the flag everytime a soldier died....BUT now the government said they are going to look into something else because its not what THEY and the legion want. I couldn't believe the legion wouldn't want to give a last respect to soldiers who have given their lives.

[AngusThermopyle]

I couldn't believe the legion wouldn't want to give a last respect to soldiers who have given their lives.

The Legion does pay respect to those who have given there lives. Are you a member of a Legion? If not you should try it, you might learn a lot more than you would suspect. Also you should learn the history of lowering the flag to half mast, then you would understand their reasons. Until then all you can do is speculate.

[M.Dancer]

Done deal. The US and France will be upping the ante according to Don Newman ....

[bush_cheney2004]

Done deal. The US and France will be upping the ante according to Don Newman ....

Yep...and ironically makes more sense than France because of existing CanAm interoperability. Ironic because the French speak....ummmm....French!

[capricorn]

The Legion does pay respect to those who have given there lives.

Right you are, and not only on Remembrance Day. The Legion has over 1,500 branches throughout Canada. For example, at all their monthly general meetings, they hold a minute's silence to honour all those who have laid down their lives for our country. I am a Legion member and was secretary to our Legion branch for 4 years. I know all the ways they honour the fallen and the veterans from all conflicts.

[M.Dancer]

Yep...and ironically makes more sense than France because of existing CanAm interoperability. Ironic because the French speak....ummmm....French!

On the otherhand the French are very good. They tend to be older and very well trained and motivated. But you are right. Since we stopped working with the brits (thank God) we work closer with the yanks(god help us)

[eyeball]

Apparently we'll have to come up with a couple of generations worth of soldiers. Its like I said a little while back we might as well form a new Cabinet position for a Minister of Afghanistan because we're going to be there for a very long long time.

[Peter F]

Not being capable of doing that is not the same as not willing to.

Yeah. and thats why we were threatening to leave if someone (but not us) didnt cough up 1000 troops.

[White Doors]

Yeah. and thats why we were threatening to leave if someone (but not us) didnt cough up 1000 troops.

exactly. thanks for playing.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

It is my hope that now the focus will be shifted to the shortage of folks involved in the humanitarian efforts in this poor nation. Security is the key of course, and while that issue has not been totally resolved it has been addressed. It is time to consider the next step.

The nation needs a viable economy to support itself. The pipeline concept is only one way to accomplish this and in the greater scheme of things does not have a huge impact on that society. Hold onto your socks folks, I have the solution for you. The United Nations needs to create, and protect a plan to legalize the growth of the poppy for the production of opiate derivative drugs for sale to the developed world. This market is huge and growing rapidly. Make it legal and protect it. This will cut the legs out from under the Taliban and remove the source of funding for rebel efforts in violence. It would provide stable and secure employment all the way from the fields to the factories. This is the way to get the nation on its feet and end the conflict. It is the way to begin to grow an economy for the nation. It is the only viable solution to end the problems of this poor nation.

[Wild Bill]

BTW, tonight in a vote, the Cons were defeated over the idea of lowering the flag everytime a soldier died....BUT now the government said they are going to look into something else because its not what THEY and the legion want. I couldn't believe the legion wouldn't want to give a last respect to soldiers who have given their lives.

The older I get the more chuckles I find with people that have no knowledge of history and think every issue is new, 'cuz it's new for them! There is a protocol for lowering the flag over a nation's capital that has been in place for generations, if not centuries. There are situations reserved for the deaths of heads of state and others for national heroes and fallen soldiers.

If we had followed the Liberal proposal to lower the capital flag for each and every fallen soldier it would have been perpetually at halfmast for both the first and second World Wars. This would only have cheapened the gesture, rendering it meaningless.

I find it "smarmy to the max" for the Libs to be pushing this. It is obviously cheap politics. They are the party that sent our troops into Afghanistan with old, obsolete weapons, no helicopters and arctic cammo 'cuz they had cheaped out for years and never bought them any suitable for the desert. Our troops had to improvise, with their own money! And now they are dying from IED's while traveling the roads because the Liberals canceled new helicopters after the defeat of Mulroney/Campbell and then sold the good ones we had left to the Dutch, leaving us the junky, unsafe Sea Kings. If we had proper helicopters we'd have far fewer deaths. Our NATO partners must feel very sorry for our troops.

So the party that spent over a decade rolling their resources back to the level of the Boer War, sending them out on "peace-keeping" mission after mission where the insurgents invariably had better guns than our soldiers (Bosnia?), just so Chetien could score another photo op NOW HAS THE GALL to claim that they want the flag lowered on Parliament Hill because the TORIES don't have enough respect for our fallen??!!

What's more important? Lowering a flag after a soldier has died or giving him the proper resources so that he has a better chance of not being killed in the first place?

My heart went out to our soldiers during all those years of Liberal rule. How could one stay motivated when the Liberal government obviously was so callous and uncaring of their lives?

C'est rier, n'est-ce pas?

[Oleg Bach]

The older I get the more chuckles I find with people that have no knowledge of history and think every issue is new, 'cuz it's new for them! There is a protocol for lowering the flag over a nation's capital that has been in place for generations, if not centuries. There are situations reserved for the deaths of heads of state and others for national heroes and fallen soldiers.

If we had followed the Liberal proposal to lower the capital flag for each and every fallen soldier it would have been perpetually at halfmast for both the first and second World Wars. This would only have cheapened the gesture, rendering it meaningless.

I find it "smarmy to the max" for the Libs to be pushing this. It is obviously cheap politics. They are the party that sent our troops into Afghanistan with old, obsolete weapons, no helicopters and arctic cammo 'cuz they had cheaped out for years and never bought them any suitable for the desert. Our troops had to improvise, with their own money! And now they are dying from IED's while traveling the roads because the Liberals canceled new helicopters after the defeat of Mulroney/Campbell and then sold the good ones we had left to the Dutch, leaving us the junky, unsafe Sea Kings. If we had proper helicopters we'd have far fewer deaths. Our NATO partners must feel very sorry for our troops.

So the party that spent over a decade rolling their resources back to the level of the Boer War, sending them out on "peace-keeping" mission after mission where the insurgents invariably had better guns than our soldiers (Bosnia?), just so Chetien could score another photo op NOW HAS THE GALL to claim that they want the flag lowered on Parliament Hill because the TORIES don't have enough respect for our fallen??!!

What's more important? Lowering a flag after a soldier has died or giving him the proper resources so that he has a better chance of not being killed in the first place?

My heart went out to our soldiers during all those years of Liberal rule. How could one stay motivated when the Liberal government obviously was so callous and uncaring of their lives?

C'est rier, n'est-ce pas?

As the lackies do - the henchmanship in Harper is astounding..he wants to extend the mission - duping the good citizens into believing that at a certain date..victory appears...we are not under attack - saudi arabia should have been invaded..they provide the money hence the training for so-called terrorists...only reason to extend the mission is so those that are enriched though the selling of war supplies can continue to gouge the tax payer...that's the bottom line - greed and you are fools who die for bored and bitter rich angry old men in the bank towers..we are dupes...there is no noble cause and to send troops..IF but one dies it is murder...indirect and unaware...but I guess you can murder someone and if they are to stupid to understand then it is not murder...what a fraud.

[jbg]

If we had followed the Liberal proposal to lower the capital flag for each and every fallen soldier it would have been perpetually at halfmast for both the first and second World Wars. This would only have cheapened the gesture, rendering it meaningless.

I find it "smarmy to the max" for the Libs to be pushing this. It is obviously cheap politics.

The transparent purpose of having the flag go up and down like a toilet seat was to destroy all public support for military missions of any kind.

[M.Dancer]

The transparent purpose of having the flag go up and down like a toilet seat was to destroy all public support for military missions of any kind.

!00% correct.

[daniel]

Support the Troops!!

Yeah, right. Ignore them after they had made the ultimate sacrifice for you.

[M.Dancer]

Support the Troops!!

Yeah, right. Ignore them after they had made the ultimate sacrifice for you.

What do you do November 11th at 11:00 AM?

[AngusThermopyle]

Yeah, right. Ignore them after they had made the ultimate sacrifice for you.

It is quite obvious that you do not understand military culture or the codes of honour and ethics that go with it. The fallen are honoured, indeed they are cherished above all others. Just because the means of doing this do not involve a three ring public circus does not mean it is not being done.

[Argus]

The transparent purpose of having the flag go up and down like a toilet seat was to destroy all public support for military missions of any kind.

Paul Watson, that sweet and gentle man, commenting on the deaths of sealers said something to the effect that while their deaths were tragic, of course, they weren't as tragic as those poor baby seals they murdered. "They're vicious killers," he said.

I bring it up only for comparison purposes, because that is pretty much how the left feels about soldiers. The idea that the NDP and BQ banded together with the Liberals because they wanted to pay homage to fallen soldiers is laughable and ludicrous. It's cheap theatre for the dummies. They feel about as much sympathy and sorrow for dead soldiers as Watson does for dead sealers.

[margrace]

Look why don't you guys be honest just for once. Canadians were horrified to read that George Bush forbade any information about their fallen troops. We in Canada said at least we are not afraid to acknowlege those who have died. The first thing that Mr. Bush's little pastsy Harper did was to stop the lowering of the flag. Just how stupid do you think we Canadian voter are?

We want the flag lowered, we want to honour out troops dying in foreign places. Stop with the BS please. This forum is just showing how far Mr. Harper's little patsys will go to obey his nonsense and I note that some of the posters are American. Why do you want us to stop lowering our flag. I am pretty sick of some of the Americans and Canadian Traitors on here.