Soldiers Killed in Afghanistan

[August1991]

“It’s close to home,” said Donna James, an Oshawa, Ont. resident. “My heart goes out to the families. I just want to show my respect.”

She and her mother stood with Donna’s daughter Lindsay Penny and Doreen’s friend Sharon Robinson of Oakville, Ont.

“The soldiers know why they’re there,” she said of Afghanistan. “Even though we know it’s terrible, thank God they do what they do.

“We need to get more troops over there even if we don’t want to lose anybody,” Robinson said. “After seeing what (terrorist attacks) happened in New York City, thank God we have our troops.”

The thin strip of grass between the fence and Highway 2 was jammed with hundreds of people, many wearing red shirts or carrying Canadian flags.

Belleville Intelligencer

Sometimes, ordinary people get the complicated facts straight. I'm an ordinary person and I think like Sharon Robinson.

The young men and women in Afghanistan deserve now, so much, all of our support. This mission is vital to the rest of us.

To those in Afghanistan, you should only come home when your mission is completed. I appreciate what you do. Make sure you win. People like me and my children depend on your success.

Edited August 24, 2008 by August1991

[jdobbin]

To those in Afghanistan, you should only come home when your mission is completed. I appreciate what you do. Make sure you win. People like me and my children depend on your success.

And yet we are hearing from more of the families of the soldiers killed about how they support their sons and daughters but wonder if fighting there will continue for a "hundred years."

That was a quote from one of the families mourning a loss this weekend. That father had turned against the war.

[Argus]

And yet we are hearing from more of the families of the soldiers killed about how they support their sons and daughters but wonder if fighting there will continue for a "hundred years."

That was a quote from one of the families mourning a loss this weekend. That father had turned against the war.

And you immediately saw an opportunity for political advantage, yes?

[jdobbin]

And you immediately saw an opportunity for political advantage, yes?

Just responding to a facile support the troops posting that we sometimes see.

Yes, support the troops. No, to unquestioned support for how the war is managed.

[Argus]

Just responding to a facile support the troops posting that we sometimes see.

Yes, support the troops. No, to unquestioned support for how the war is managed.

The war is being managed quite well, nor have I seen any legitimate criticism of that from your party.

However, clearly Dion saw an advantage to score political points soon after he came to power, and so he and his party began attacking the very reason we are even in Afghanistan in the first place, even though it was his party which put us there and accepted the mission.

[jdobbin]

The war is being managed quite well, nor have I seen any legitimate criticism of that from your party.

You haven't seen that criticism?

The Liberals have said that the complete rebuilding of the heroin trade is helping to fund the war. Since the Tories have gotten into power, it has completely recovered from the years of Taliban rule. The Tories know this but nothing has been done about it. It is a problem that gets worse every year. The Tories can't say this is a problem that started under the Liberals. It is fairly new and should be alarming to most since it greases the wheels of the Taliban.

The Liberals have criticized the management of prisoners. The problem started under the Liberals but has accelerated under the Tories. The complete overrunning of the Kandahar prison was brushed aside by some supporters of the war but it suggests poor management and the corruption that is rotting Afghanistan from the inside.

Civilian casualties. This is a terrible year for it and even complete supporters of the war such as Peter Worthington say it saps whatever goodwill Canada and the the allies have in the country. The Afghan government is undermined as they have been in this week when they have to explain why 76 civilians were killed by NATO.

There are plenty of indications that the war is not being managed well. The U.S. and Britain are going to increase their numbers in Afghanistan and perhaps that will quell the violence for a time. However, the Afghan government corruption, tribalism and incompetence doesn't look to be capable of building a nation.

And let's not forget Pakistan. How can you manage a war in one place when those that you are fighting are shielded and supported by another country. This has accelerated under the Tories.

This is all legitimate criticism and it has been talked about in Parliament by the Opposition.

The Liberals supported the extension when Harper reached across to them but the Liberals indicated that support was contingent on a timetable and benchmarks. Are we hitting those benchmarks and are the Tories committed to the timetable?

However, clearly Dion saw an advantage to score political points soon after he came to power, and so he and his party began attacking the very reason we are even in Afghanistan in the first place, even though it was his party which put us there and accepted the mission.

And had set a timetable and benchmarks for our involvement.

The management of the war has to continue to ask whether violence can be quashed and if a nation can be built. For a country like Canada, the question of whether we can be in one place indefinitely if the goals fall short have to be asked. We did that with Cyprus and Kosovo. We passed on the work to others short of perfection because to do otherwise would leave us incapable of doing other work.

[madmax]

The war is being managed quite well,

[eyeball]

What was really managed badly was the decision to go to war in the first place.

Sometimes, ordinary people get the complicated facts straight.

It stands to reason then that ordinary people should be trusted with the complicated decision of when, where and why we should send their troops.

[Topaz]

There's so many angles of truths and lies of 9/11 which brought on the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. First of all, the military, at least the soldiers who do the fighting, always believe they are doing the right thing and IF they don't believe as we saw in Iraq, they are quietly dealt with. Anyone who has compassion for people, want to help other people in the world, want them to have what we in the west ,but its not that easy. The Middle-East is ruled by their religion mostly, and they have their ways and we have ours and alot of the time we don't like what we see. It's also safe to say that THEY don't like what they see as to how westerners live, especially morally. I don't think we should be there but the military sent in by the Libs and kept there by the Cons. There's not enough troops there to fight or is it too many Taliban and their supporters? Its not too bright to have construction going on when the Taliban will just knock it down and the cost of this war will soar like the Iraq war.This whole war is a mess and some many many people have/will die because of it!

[August1991]

And yet we are hearing from more of the families of the soldiers killed about how they support their sons and daughters but wonder if fighting there will continue for a "hundred years."

If it takes a 500 years, then so be it. This mission is vital to our civilization. No one thinks that in the future, there will be no need for policemen. Thieves and outlaws will always be looking for an easy way.

All things considered, I don't think it will take so long as 100 years to remove Afghanistan & Pakistan as places offering sanctuary to backward, medieval criminals who threaten our sophisticated, liberal civilization.

What was really managed badly was the decision to go to war in the first place.

Would you disband Canada's army? The RCMP?

It stands to reason then that ordinary people should be trusted with the complicated decision of when, where and why we should send their troops.

IME, most ordinary people are capable of making good moral judgments. The decision to send troops is a moral question; how, where, when and even why are questions better left to logistic experts and academics.

----

This is good news:

Canadian Forces have destroyed a Taliban compound and crippled militants' ability to make and plant roadside bombs, military officials said Monday.

Lt.-Col. Dave Corbould told reporters Monday that Canadian Forces "hit the Taliban hard" during operation Op Timis Preem.

The operation was conducted in the Zhari district of Kandahar province last Thursday, Friday and Saturday.

CTV Edited August 26, 2008 by August1991

[jdobbin]

If it takes a 500 years, then so be it. This mission is vital to our civilization. No one thinks that in the future, there will be no need for policemen. Thieves and outlaws will always be looking for an easy way.

All things considered, I don't think it will take so long as 100 years to remove Afghanistan & Pakistan as places offering sanctuary to backward, medieval criminals who threaten our sophisticated, liberal civilization.

Our involvement there really precludes us doing much anywhere else unless we build up our military even more which you have spoken against in the past. You should come down on one side or the other.

This is good news.

There is always good news on the military front.

The bad news which is easy to find is Pakistan is spiralling out of control and the Taliban have a refuge there to recruit and send more people across the porous border.

[eyeball]

Would you disband Canada's army? The RCMP?

No and no, but you probably wouldn't recognize them once I got through with their re-organization.

IME, most ordinary people are capable of making good moral judgments. The decision to send troops is a moral question; how, where, when and even why are questions better left to logistic experts and academics.

We can leave these questions to logistic experts and academics after we use our good moral judgement in our referendum.

Edited August 26, 2008 by eyeball

[GostHacked]

And you immediately saw an opportunity for political advantage, yes?

Part of why the thread exists in the first place.

Jdobbin

And let's not forget Pakistan. How can you manage a war in one place when those that you are fighting are shielded and supported by another country. This has accelerated under the Tories.

Now the ally that Musharef was, is now gone. Al-Queda and Bin Laden are said to be hiding out in Pakistan. So, let's get our asses into Pakistan now. Why not? What is the difference?

The Liberals have said that the complete rebuilding of the heroin trade is helping to fund the war. Since the Tories have gotten into power, it has completely recovered from the years of Taliban rule. The Tories know this but nothing has been done about it. It is a problem that gets worse every year. The Tories can't say this is a problem that started under the Liberals. It is fairly new and should be alarming to most since it greases the wheels of the Taliban

==This is false. The Taliban had wiped out opium crops and other drug related crops. This was something they strongly beleived in. ==

Edit - Jdobbin, I apoligize, I missread your post. It is alarming that they are using a drug to fund the war that they wanted to eradicate.. to me this makes no sense at all.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/07...a_fact_anderson

So if it is against their ways, why would they grow opium and sell it to fund their war? Why is it, that soon after Aghanistan was invaded and the Taliban ousted, opium crops skyrocketed. It is now the #1 opium producer in the world.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...pium-trade.html

The money was raised from a 10 per cent religious tax on farmers in the areas they control, according to Antonio Maria de Costa, global head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime.

Does it not seem odd to you that the Taliban is making money off of something they wanted to eradicate alltogether?? Does this make any sense to any of you? Did something fundamentaly change with the Taliban?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/sep/2...stan.terrorism8

In a dramatic and little-noticed reversal of policy, the Taliban have told farmers in Afghanistan that they are free to start planting poppy seeds again if the Americans decide to launch a military attack.

Drug enforcement agencies last night confirmed that they expect to see a massive resumption of opium cultivation inside Afghanistan, previously the world's biggest supplier of heroin, in the next few weeks.

The Taliban virtually eradicated Afghanistan's opium crop last season after an edict by Mullah Mohammad Omar, the Taliban leader.

In July last year he said that growing opium was "un-Islamic" and warned that anyone caught planting seeds would be severely punished.

So because the US invaded, the Taliban said, go ahead and grow it.. it should give us money. And now Afghanistan is the opium capitol of the planet.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...75AC0A96E958260

Looks like the US and parts of Eurpoe wanted to help the Taliban get rid of the opium crops.

http://www.developments.org.uk/articles/op...tens-stability/

Opium threatens stability

Since the Taliban fell, opium poppy production has increased, threatening the stability of Afghanistan and lives in the West. James Hole reports.

---

Since the Taliban fell from power in 2001, opium production in Afghanistan has rocketed. At least 1.7 million people, or seven per cent of the population, rely on it for all or part of their living.

Within the past three years poppy cultivation has spread like a cancer to 28 out of 32 Afghan provinces. It is small wonder when farmers can earn up to 60 times more per hectare for poppy than for other crops. However, high prices are not the only explanation for this rise. Because poppy is a labour intensive crop it lends itself to sharecropping arrangements through which poor farmers can obtain access to land and credit. Recent trends are actually towards a fall in prices.

--

Neighbouring countries have welcomed moves by the Afghanistan government to crack down on the trade. In Central Asia, Russia and Eastern Europe, heroin injecting is fuelling an HIV/AIDS epidemic.

--

In 2003 Afghanistan’s President Karzai set out highly ambitious targets to cut opium production by 70 per cent in five years, and wipe out the country’s narcotics trade in ten years.

10 years? Afghanistan had a record output in the late 90s. 98 was a big year. The taliban almost wiped all the opium crops by the time it was invaded in 2001. So the Taliban did it in less than 3 years. If they can do it in that short of a time span, so can Karzai and NATO.

Edited August 26, 2008 by GostHacked

[AngusThermopyle]

So the Taliban did it in less than 3 years. If they can do it in that short of a time span, so can Karzai and NATO.

They could probably do it in a much shorter time span except for the fact that they don't want to abitrarlily execute anyone associated with it.

[eyeball]

They could probably do it in a much shorter time span except for the fact that they don't want to abitrarlily execute anyone associated with it.

That's why we'll never win you see, because when push comes to shove we just don't have the pagan ethos. Just go ask Colonol Kurtz.

[Argus]

What I meant to say, of course, is that our particular part of it. Clearly we don't have overall authority over most of what's going on over there. But just what would the Liberals have done differently? Nothing.

[Argus]

10 years? Afghanistan had a record output in the late 90s. 98 was a big year. The taliban almost wiped all the opium crops by the time it was invaded in 2001. So the Taliban did it in less than 3 years. If they can do it in that short of a time span, so can Karzai and NATO.

So you are suggesting we execute entire families if they grow opium?

Btw, from what I've read the notion the Taliban were anti-drug is false. They simply wanted it better organized so the price would go up. They had no problem shipping it overseas, and many of them made a lot of money through the export of opium/heroin.

[Argus]

You haven't seen that criticism?

No legitimate criticism no.

The Liberals have said that the complete rebuilding of the heroin trade is helping to fund the war. Since the Tories have gotten into power, it has completely recovered from the years of Taliban rule. The Tories know this but nothing has been done about it

Do tell us what the Liberal plan is to solve this problem. Clearly it must be brilliant.

The Liberals have criticized the management of prisoners

Yes, we never heard a word from them when Canadian soldiers were dying for lack of equipment, but let the media start suggesting that we might be somehow peripherally involved with mistreatement of prisoners - by their own government, and the opposition went ape-shit. I think I recall Stephan Dion actually bursting into tears, great heaving sobs issueing from him as he contemplated the poor taliban being denied their proper constitutional rights.

Again, what is the Liberal plan to deal with this? Let me guess; bring the taliban to Canada and give them government paid lawyers.

Civilian casualties.

The Liberals are going to do something about American airial bombardiment taht goes wrong? What exactly? What is their plan?

And let's not forget Pakistan. How can you manage a war in one place when those that you are fighting are shielded and supported by another country. This has accelerated under the Tories.

Certainly legitimate criticism of the Tories. Why they shouldb be... uhm... doing... something... right?

What was the Liberal plan to deal with this again?

Any legitimate criticism has to involve saying that what the Tories are doing is wrong, and what they need to do isntead is.... X... whatever. The Liberals have no such suggestions.

The Liberals don't give a crap about the war, or the dead on either side. All they care about is any opportuinty to score political points so they can get back into the trough.

[jdobbin]

No legitimate criticism no.

I haven't heard you think any criticism is legitimate and yet the war does not go well as you seem to claim.

Do tell us what the Liberal plan is to solve this problem. Clearly it must be brilliant.

Stuck to a timetable and indicat to the Afghans and our allies that we won't be there forever. It is a legitimate criticism that our allies have not done enough and that the Afghan government remains mired in corruption and incompetence.

We should not be renewing a contract to do the same job year after year without sign Afghanistan is anywhere clear to taking care of itself.

Yes, we never heard a word from them when Canadian soldiers were dying for lack of equipment, but let the media start suggesting that we might be somehow peripherally involved with mistreatement of prisoners - by their own government, and the opposition went ape-shit. I think I recall Stephan Dion actually bursting into tears, great heaving sobs issueing from him as he contemplated the poor taliban being denied their proper constitutional rights.

Great sobs, huh?

There are a lot of past governments to blame for the equipment not equal to the task. The Mulroney government sold the heavy lift choppers and bought the Iltis. The Liberals couldn't even rush out proper camouflage gear.

Martin at least got the G-Wagon in place quickly and more heavy equipment for when the forces moved to Kandahar.

As far as treatment of prisoners, the Conservatives ignore the fact that not everyone taken into custody was Taliban. They dismissed any concern about this fact. They dismissed any concern about keep track of prisoners.

Again, what is the Liberal plan to deal with this? Let me guess; bring the taliban to Canada and give them government paid lawyers.

My first thought if we can't properly monitor prisoners was a NATO run prison just as the Americans have in Bagram.

The Liberals are going to do something about American airial bombardiment taht goes wrong? What exactly? What is their plan?

I was thinking of Canadians shooting civilians as we saw last week. As military ally Peter Worthington says, it undermines support for the military by ordinary Afghans.

Certainly legitimate criticism of the Tories. Why they shouldb be... uhm... doing... something... right?

What was the Liberal plan to deal with this again?

Back in January, the Liberals suggested a NATO solution to the problem with Pakistan's assistance. Pakistan took it to mean invasion by NATO. Dion meant nothing of the sort. He indicated heavy pressure should be asserted so that Pakistan get control of its borders.

Harper dismissed this suggestion but he himself is left with the question of what to do about Pakistan?

Any legitimate criticism has to involve saying that what the Tories are doing is wrong, and what they need to do isntead is.... X... whatever. The Liberals have no such suggestions.

Stick to the timetable and stop talking about it being a surrender. It isn't. It is a challenge to our allies to step up and a chance for us to commit elsewhere, regroup and retrain.

The Liberals don't give a crap about the war, or the dead on either side. All they care about is any opportuinty to score political points so they can get back into the trough.

The Tories are showing no indication of doing anything differently in Afghanistan. Well, it hasn't been working too well.

At some point, they will come to the conclusion that a timetable is necessary because Afghanistan is going to be a very long term problem. I have no problem aiding them, even using military intervention if need be but we can't build a nation there. The Afghans have to do that and so far they haven't.

It didn't work in Somalia and it won't work in Afghanistan.

[Army Guy]

Thanks August, There is a couple of vid clips about the whole process, the one in french is an excellent version, it makes my chest swell in pride watching other Canadians showing our soldiers repect but also our thier respect to our nation....