William Ashley Posted September 4, 2011 Report Share Posted September 4, 2011 (edited) Speaking of Afghanistan, this just yesterday -- is that a CF solider in combat gear in Kabul? NO it is KANDAHAR.. but but, didn't they leave a few months ago? http://www.stalbertgazette.com/article/20110903/SAG0801/309039983/packing-up What is this 100 Canadian soldiers assigned to a combat role... in Kandahar ON this past FRIDAY...-- but didn't the combat mission end? haven’t done much shooting. HUH? Doesn't look the same... http://www.dawn.com/2011/07/07/canada-ends-combat-mission-in-afghanistan.html Canada will also continue to give aid to Afghanistan, with its overall involvement between now and the end of 2014 expected to cost around US$700 million a year That is ONLY 300 million less than the combat mission cost with personnel there.That is 2% of the funds for "ACTIONPLAN" Lets see how these numbers line up... stay tuned.. The deficit is projected to continue to decline to $0.3 billion in 2014–15. It is expected that there will be a surplus of $4.2 billion in 2015–16. - HOW MUCH OF IT IS BEING BORROWED THE YEAR BEFORE? Updated Budget 2011 financial requirements for 2011–12 are projected to be lower than in 2010–11 at $36 billion versus $47 billion. The debt program for 2011–12 has been developed in the context of a new medium-term debt management strategy focused on stability and reduced financing risk. For 2011–12, gross issuance of domestic marketable bonds is planned to be approximately $102 billion. At the end of 2011–12, the stock of marketable bonds is projected to be $461 billion. Four new maturity dates have been introduced to reduce rollover risk. These new dates are expected to greatly reduce single-day rollover of maturing debt, with noticeable improvements beginning as early as 2013–14. Benchmark target range sizes in the 2-, 3- and 5-year sectors have been increased to facilitate the transition to the adjusted maturity dates in those sectors. Regular bond buyback program operations are planned to be $8 billion in 2011–12, about $3 billion higher than in 2010–11. For 2011–12, buyback operations on a cash basis will be reintroduced for longer-dated bonds. By the end of 2011–12, the treasury bill stock is projected to be $150 billion, about $13 billion lower than the year-end level for 2010–11. To improve prudential liquidity management, over the next three years, the Government will borrow an additional amount of $35 billion to safeguard its ability to meet payment obligations in situations where normal access to funding markets may be disrupted or delayed. This financing activity will have no material impact on the budgetary balance or the federal debt as the cost of the additional borrowing will be offset by a corresponding increase in returns on interest-bearing assets. 461 BILLION IN NEW DEBT NEXT YEAR!!! It is all fancy when people can say we are reducing the DEFICIT BUT HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS IN NEW DEBT!!! my bad For 2011–12, the aggregate borrowing limit that was approved by the Governor in Council to meet updated Budget 2011 financial requirements and provide a margin for prudence was $300 billion, the same amount requested and approved for 2010–11. A 3rd of a trillion dollars... THAT IS MORE THAN A YEAR OF REVENUE in new debt! THIS MEANS THAT FOR EVERY YEAR OF 300 BILLION DOLLAR BORROWING, IT WILL TAKE OVER 1 YEAR TO REPAY IF ALL REVENUE WENT TO THAT. OR IN ACTUALITY IT IS MORE LIKE 6 YEARS OF HARD DEBT REPAYMENT FOR EVERY YEAR OF TORY RULE. TORY CARD MEMBERS OF THIS PERIOD WILL HAVE TO HAVE ALL THEIR PROPERTY CONFISCATED TO REPAY THIS AND PUT TO FORCED SLAVERY FOR LIFE OR UNTIL THE DEBT IS PAID DOWN. NEW DEBT TO ADD TO THE PILE IN 2011-2012 $263 billion Deficit is one thing.. but DEBT BORROWING IS ANOTHER.. IT IS JUST FINANCIAL VOODOO - THE DEBT BORROWING IS MUCH HIRE THAN THE DEFICIT! THEY ARE OVERSPENDING BY HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS! Edited September 4, 2011 by William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 4, 2011 Report Share Posted September 4, 2011 Umm, the Combat mission cost as much as $2B per year...and that doesn't include aid money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted September 4, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 4, 2011 (edited) Umm, the Combat mission cost as much as $2B per year...and that doesn't include aid money. What for? It seems that works out to about 20,000 $40,000 salaries a year that could have been made. or 20,000+ new jobs. Edited September 4, 2011 by William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 4, 2011 Report Share Posted September 4, 2011 I wasn't commenting on the mission, just the info. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted September 5, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 5, 2011 I wasn't commenting on the mission, just the info. 2B was more than the 1.5 in the link.. the price seems to have adjusted, what yeara was the amount 2B or more? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 5, 2011 Report Share Posted September 5, 2011 2B was more than the 1.5 in the link.. the price seems to have adjusted, what yeara was the amount 2B or more? Last year, we spent something like $2.1B on the military mission alone. Your figure included aid payments (which are currently going on), which are on top of the combat costs that we were paying up until now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted September 5, 2011 Report Share Posted September 5, 2011 Barking up the wrong tree again William? http://www.stalbertgazette.com/article/20110903/SAG0801/309039983/packing-up Capt. Curtis Chow is a highly trained soldier with the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan. He’s in one of the most dangerous places on Earth, with the safety of hundreds of people depending on his actions.So what’s he been up to lately? Washing cars, he says. “It’s kind of the non-sexy part of the job,” Chow says, speaking from Kandahar Airfield on Wednesday. It’s been pretty quiet lately, so they’ve been helping the logistics troops prep vehicles for return to Canada. That means getting all the dirt off them so they can clear customs. Harper’s ultra secret plan to install car washes across Afghanistan……. Do you put the shiny side of the foil on the outside? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7-K6-oNFs8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted September 9, 2011 Report Share Posted September 9, 2011 Tin foil indeed....so much for reading your own sources....i thought it would sort of self evident, your in the middle of a war zone, with a war still ongoing why would you not have combat forces there...they did report that it would take roughly one full year to get all our equipment back.... My link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted September 9, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 9, 2011 (edited) Tin foil indeed....so much for reading your own sources....i thought it would sort of self evident, your in the middle of a war zone, with a war still ongoing why would you not have combat forces there...they did report that it would take roughly one full year to get all our equipment back.... My link They also said that combat roles would end in July. SEPTEMBER COMBAT FORCES IN KANDAHAR. Its not like doing patrol operations isn't "risky" or non combat oriented. Some non combat forces in Libya, just helping the tanks be secure, or the other military equipment being transported to the NTC.. no combat role here --- unless we get fired on.. what you think they are blue helmets, even blue helmets fire back. I really think your view is dim. The date has been pushed back LIE AFTER LIE AFTER LIE Edited September 10, 2011 by William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted September 9, 2011 Report Share Posted September 9, 2011 From todays Dennis Miller show: Dennis's theory on conspiracy theorists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted September 10, 2011 Report Share Posted September 10, 2011 (edited) They also said that combat roles would end in July. SEPTEMBER COMBAT FORCES IN KANDAHAR. ITs not like doing patrol operations isn't "risky" or non combat oriented. Some non combat forces in Libya, just helping the tanks be secure, or the other military equipment being transported to the NTC.. no combat role here --- unless we get fired on.. what you think they are blue helmets, even blue helmets fire back. I really think your view is dim. THe date has been pushed back LIE AFTER LIE AFTER LIE William ,it is called being prepared, I doubt the taliban are playing by the same rules and quit combat also at the end of july.. They are not going out looking for a fight, but if it came to them ,what are they supposed to do , say sorry we are no longer doing combat ,you will have to go find some americans. Edited September 10, 2011 by PIK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted September 10, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 10, 2011 (edited) William ,it is called being prepared, I doubt the taliban are playing by the same rules and quit combat also at the end of july.. They are not going out looking for a fight, but if it came to them ,what are they supposed to do , say sorry we are no longer doing combat ,you will have to go find some americans. No its called dragging your a$s. Its their country not Canada's. They are disenfranchised. They have no democratic option (NATO rigged the electoral candidates year after year, threatening people bribing them etc..) Fact is they have a reason to be there, it is their country. Canada is the INVADER NOT THE SAVIOUR to those people. THEY ARE MUSLIM THAT IS WHAT MUSLIMS DO THAT IS THEIR CULTURE THEIR COUNTRY THEIR CULTURE, THE OTHER AFGHANI'S HAVE ALSO CRITICIZED NATO'S OPERATIONS. DO YOU EVEN BOTHER TO READ THE REAL STORIES NOT JUST THE BRAINWASHED JUNK THAT WAR IS GOOD WE FIGHT WE GOOD. No it doesn't work that way Canada is half way across the world shooting people, murdering people, raping people, countless sexual assaults, drug violations, innocent murders, threats, and outright violence, THAT IS NOT THE TYPE OF CANADA THAT SHOULD BE SUPPORTED. The whole war was fabricated, within days the Taliban offered to give up Osama to Pakistan (they appeared to) and then the US just sat on intel that discovered his location. Canada shouldn't be there in the first place. Mistake one. then 2002 then 2003 then 2004 then 2005 then 2006 then 2007 then 2008 then 2009 then 2010 then 2011 --- and guess what I bet they will still be there in 2012 2013 and 2014. LIES unlawful undeclared war and lies.. they are liars and criminals. WAR CRIMINALS SHOULD NOT BE SUPPORTED! THEY ARE WAR CRIMINALS, THE US IS WAR CRIMINALS SUPPORTING A US WAR IS SUPPORTING WAR CRIMES. YOU ARE A WAR CRIMINAL IF YOU SUPPORT THEM! STOP. DEFENSE IS NOT OCCUPATION. They blamed Saudi's for the attacks not Afghan's. The Taliban offered to stop sheltering Osama and turn him over to Pakistan and an informal request for extradition (the us request violated the Hauge convention on extradition, technically and legally the Taliban could not in good conscience turn him over to the US due to the absence of a chance for a fair trial - also the US did not request extradition of him, even though Osama had been on the US most wanted list for years) . There was no causi belli the US (and allies such as Canada ) steamrolled them. The Taliban is not Al Qaeda. Edited September 11, 2011 by William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dizzy Posted September 10, 2011 Report Share Posted September 10, 2011 I don't think you have a sense of the shear weight of the assets we held in kandahar, at various locations, and the kind of labour required to remove them. Yes, we left kandahar, but people have to get our shit back, unless you'd rather leave it for another country to enjoy? If you really want to get technical, we haven't left a combat role because the 500ish soldiers now in kabul training the ANA will, in moments, face conflict. But, as for our men and women in KAF and the region's FOBs, we're done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted September 11, 2011 Report Share Posted September 11, 2011 They blamed Saudi's for the attacks not Afghan's. The Taliban offered to stop sheltering Osama and turn him over to Pakistan an an informal request for extradition (the us request violation the hauge convention on extradition, technically and legally the Taliban could not in good conscience turn him over to the US due to the absence of a chance for a fair trial - also the US did not request extradition of him, even though Osama had been on the US most wanted list for years) . There was no causi belli the US (and allies such as Canada ) steamrolled them. The Taliban is not Al Qaeda. Ah, Osama was living in Pakistan for years and many important Pakistanis knew it. The Americans had to go get him on their own. What's your point? We all know the Taliban are noted for their "fair trials". Right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted September 11, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 11, 2011 (edited) ------ Edited September 11, 2011 by William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted September 11, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 11, 2011 (edited) Yes, we left kandahar According to the article... NO YOU HAVN'T. If you really want to get technical, we haven't left a combat role because the 500ish soldiers now in kabul training the ANA will, in moments, face conflict. But, as for our men and women in KAF and the region's FOBs, we're done. THEY WERE STILL IN KANDAHAR at the airbase and transporting from there on patrols... They said combat operations would cease in July. THEY DIDN'T. ARMED PATROL AND FORCE PROTECTION ARE COMBAT ROLES. THEY LIED. Carrying bullets back and forth does not count as non combat roles if you carry those bullets to shoot at people. It is not what they said there were going to do. They said combat operations will cease in July. Now it is by the end of 2011. THEY ARE LIES. Edited September 11, 2011 by William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted September 11, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 11, 2011 (edited) Ah, Osama was living in Pakistan for years and many important Pakistanis knew it. The Americans had to go get him on their own. What's your point? We all know the Taliban are noted for their "fair trials". Right? The point was THEY OFFERED TO GIVE HIM UP. The failure to do so was the whole reason the US used to invade Afghanistan. Meaning the rationale behind that was false. By international law they could not turn him over to the US because there was no expectation of a fair trial or insuring his safety pending a fair trial. Read the Hague convention (original in french) it explicitly outlines the expectations of extradition, and a formal extradition request. The US did not meet the requirements for a formal extradition. THey did offer to turn him over to another country however, (which they appeared to), the US still invaded. The causi belli the US stated was not a legitimate causi belli because it was not "whole" under international law. Its demands were unjustified due to lack of guarentees to a fair trial or to Osama's safety pending trial. They refused him to be handed over to a third party to face fair trial. The US did not oblige. The US could have put in a formal extradition request to Pakistan if they really wanted him since they had formal relations with Pakistan. THEY CREATED AN UNNECESSARY WAR. Edited September 11, 2011 by William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted September 11, 2011 Report Share Posted September 11, 2011 They refused him to be handed over to a third party to face fair trial. The US did not oblige. The US could have put in a formal extradition request to Pakistan if they really wanted him since they had formal relations with Pakistan. THEY CREATED AN UNNECESSARY WAR. To do that, Pakistan would have to admit he was there. They would not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted September 12, 2011 Report Share Posted September 12, 2011 They also said that combat roles would end in July.SEPTEMBER COMBAT FORCES IN KANDAHAR. Its not like doing patrol operations isn't "risky" or non combat oriented. Your right William, patroling is combat related...and as long as we have Canadian soldiers on the ground the government and the military is going to take every precaution to safe gaurd lifes....most of the troops in Kanadar are logistics and maintainers who are busy tearing the camp down, sorting through 1000's of sea cans, warehouses, other storeage facilities ensuring everything is servicable if it is not they are fixing it, or rendering it non lethal, or non useable..this they already reported will take more than a years time after the Combat forces left... Well william these troops need a force protection unit...hence the guy in the news paper....while most of this equipment will be shipped back to Canada, some of it will be re used in the training mission in Kabul and it will travel by road...and it does need a Comabt force to do so....They did not lie to you...you just fail to educate your self on what it takes to draw down a mission and what force is required to do that.... Some non combat forces in Libya, just helping the tanks be secure, or the other military equipment being transported to the NTC.. no combat role here --- unless we get fired on.. Once again they are in the middle of a war zone, and precautions need to be taken....and yes your right if they are fired upon they will fire back...it's what we do in a war zone....there has been no true or surrender agreement signed, any Canadian in Afghan is a target....and they will take every precaution to safe gaurd lifes....ending the Comabt mission means we have stopped NATO Combat missions or operations ...it does not mean we are going to stop protecting ourselfs... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted October 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 (edited) http://edmonton.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20111029/afghanistan-attacks-target-nato-afghan-forces-111029/20111029/?hub=EdmontonHome no combat here, safe non involved non combat mission retired Col. Michel Drapeau said Taliban militants remain a threat wherever a soldier is in training or fighting mode. If they can't stop it there, no ammount of security will stop it here, so why try? Why the multi billions on airport scanners and people tracking databases? How is 700kg of explosives a needle? Edited October 30, 2011 by William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted November 4, 2011 Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 It seems to me that william might want to see more soldiers killed just to prove his point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.