Afghanistan

[capricorn]

Little aid reaching Afghans says Senlis Council.

I found this passage in the article to be rather embarrassing for CIDA, and by extension, Canada.

According to CIDA, the agency has given out thousands of tons of food, but Senlis said it was "not able to obtain information on any specific food distribution points so as to validate this claim."

[jdobbin]

Korean deal for hostages raises questions.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...29?hub=Politics

The Canadian government has expressed regret over South Korea's decision to negotiate a hostage release with the Taliban.

With a presence in Afghanistan that comprises 2,300 soldiers, as well as development officials, diplomats, and non-government workers, Canada reacted with caution to the news.

In a carefully crafted response delivered late Wednesday, Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier's office expressed disapproval of South Korean's handling of the crisis.

"We do not negotiate with terrorists, for any reason,'' said a statement issued by Bernier's office.

"Such negotiations, even if unsuccessful, only lead to further acts of terrorism.''

Bernier was shuffled into the Foreign Affairs portfolio this month and touted as an ideal point man for communicating with Canadians -- especially Quebecers -- about the mission in Afghanistan.

Taliban militants released 12 of 19 South Korean missionary aid workers on Wednesday, with the rest to be freed over the next 48 hours.

Under the deal reached Tuesday, South Korea reaffirmed a pledge it made before the hostage crisis began to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan by year's end. Seoul also said it would prevent South Korean Christian missionaries from working in the Muslim country.

The agreement was controversial because the Afghan government was not party to the talks. Critics say the Taliban could emerge with enhanced political legitimacy for negotiating successfully with a foreign government.

The deal is not good news for anyone.

[jdobbin]

Layton again calls for a pull-out.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070903/...ghan_cda_layton

Federal NDP Leader Jack Layton is repeating his call for Canada to safely and securely withdraw its troops from Afghanistan now and take the lead in forging peace talks to end the bloodshed there.

Layton told The Canadian Press on Monday in Toronto where he attended the Labour Day parade that the military mission, which is scheduled to run out in February 2009, isn't accomplishing increased security in Afghanistan.

He said he wants to see Canada take the lead in a comprehensive peace process.

"Canada's voice and reputation as a country that can lead in peace negotiations and discussions should be used here instead of using the approach that emerged from the White House," said Layton.

Perhaps Layton is hoping to make inroads into Quebec with the push to end involvement immediately.

[bush_cheney2004]

Korean deal for hostages raises questions.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...29?hub=Politics

The deal is not good news for anyone.

Why is it not "good news" for the likes of Jack Layton. He championed direct negotiations with the Taliban last fall. "Tis a very Canadian thing to do" crowed a poll on this very topic.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...0520?hub=Canada

[capricorn]

Layton again calls for a pull-out.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070903/...ghan_cda_layton

Perhaps Layton is hoping to make inroads into Quebec with the push to end involvement immediately.

Or is he preparing to table a motion for a pullout when Parliament resumes?

[jdobbin]

Or is he preparing to table a motion for a pullout when Parliament resumes?

At the moment, Parliament is scheduled to return September 17, the day of the by-elections.

[Army Guy]

More fat to chew on. Are the liberals just chasing votes.

Liberals

[Army Guy]

capricorn:

I found this passage in the article to be rather embarrassing for CIDA, and by extension, Canada.

According to CIDA, the agency has given out thousands of tons of food, but Senlis said it was "not able to obtain information on any specific food distribution points so as to validate this claim."

Not able to obtain info does not mean it is not happening.

CiDA

[Denny]

I think the fedral government - both the Liberals before and the Conservatives now - have done a terrible job of defining the war strategy in such a way that it encourages Canadians, and gives us all the expectation of victory.

It seems that we are just making strikes here and there, then moving on to a different locale and letting the Taliban regroup in the palce we left behind. But, Afghanistan is a very large country in area. We really do not have control, we are just putting up a show of force there. This is not just a Canadian problem, its a lack of a coherent vision by the whole UN contingent there. It seems we (the U.N. forces, that is) are imitating the failed tactics of the Soviet Union back in the 90's. Just think how fast things would progress if the U.S. had 1 million men there, U.K. 200,000, Canada 100,000, etc. Those are not that high a force to raise, let's not forget that Canada, a nation of just 11 million going into WWII had over 700,000 men oveseas! So, relatively speaking, for us to raise 100,000 men today is a walk in the park by comparison. Let's say among the U.N we could get 2 millon men (and women) there. We could take complete control of the situation, seal the borders and draw an ever constricting ring around the Taliban, while purging the country of the guns and explosives. This was done in Germany years ago, and it worked swiftly, from D-Day to surrender was all of 10 months. And, don't fortget that Germany was more technically advanced then that the Taliban is today.

If we had prosecuted the war against Germany, back in WWII, as has been done so far with Afghanistan, we'd still be there, but would have lost so many men over the years.

If a war is worth doing, its worth doing all out. (No, I don't mean bombings, I mean a proper occupation.) I'd personally support a full out initiative by enlisting myself. If Afghanistan is not that important to warrant a sufficient effort to gain an expedited victory, then let's pack up our stuff and get out.

[capricorn]

capricorn:

Not able to obtain info does not mean it is not happening.

CiDA

Oh, I agree. As with the mission overall, our government has done a poor job of informing Canadians of achievements in Afghanistan.

[jdobbin]

Harper has made some comments on Afghanistan the last few days. He said he is no rush to debate the subject and has hinted that Canada will stay in Afghanistan but has offered no idea as to what we'd be doing.

http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/255038

What role, exactly, does Prime Minister Stephen Harper see Canada playing in Afghanistan after our combat tour in Kandahar ends in February 2009? Rather than provide clarity on this vital issue, the Conservatives seem intent on muddying the waters.

On June 22, Harper seemed to signal that our days in Kandahar were numbered. "This mission will end" unless Parliament votes to extend it, he said. And that is highly unlikely, given the opposition parties' views, growing public disaffection and lack of allied support.

While Harper still hopes we will not "simply abandon Afghanistan," he also acknowledged "there is some expectation that there would be a new role." Later, on Sept. 2, Defence Minister Peter MacKay echoed him. "Our current configuration will end," he said. The signal "has been sent," and "there is an expiration date that has been set."

But today, two weeks later, the "expiration date" is as fuzzy as the "new role." Harper now says he wants to "finish the job." He sees no need to have Parliament vote soon on a new role. He hopes to "continue with what we are working on now." Continue in Kandahar until the job is done? How long might that be? Another decade?

[weaponeer]

Afghanistan has already been Canada's longest war. Continuous combat for 5+ years already, WW1 was only 3.5, and we only fought on the ground for less than 2 in WW2. It will be almost seven years of combat by the time we pull out in Feb 2009.

Our role will be combat, everyone in Afghanistan has a combat role whether they acknowledge it or not. "we are only here to do reconstruction" they say as the "workers" are escorted by an infantry company into the Afghan countryside....

Our role will be combat of some form, perhaps CF18's. We would not deploy them to support our own troops, perhaps we will use them to help someone else. Perhaps we will take on a combat role elsewhere, there is Somalia, Darfour etc... The war will continue. UBL said the other day, convert and he will end everything, perhaps we will cave in and all convert.

[Kandeeru]

I think that I've found an article that pretty much sums up the whole Afghanistan issue

http://www.thethoughtsalesman.com/node/10

[ScottSA]

I think that I've found an article that pretty much sums up the whole Afghanistan issue

http://www.thethoughtsalesman.com/node/10

Not a bad take on it, except for his blithe assessment that Iraq is "unquestionably a quagmire." He should have simply stopped at "Afghanistan is a different war," because any definition of "quagmire" one attaches to Iraq must also be attached to Afghanistan. The term simply connotes that one is bogged down in some way and can't simply skip away, like Canada during the Somme, or on Green beach, or in Cyprus. Which is not to say that either the Iraq or Afghanistan mission is suffering because of being a "quagmire"...all war is a quagmire until the generals on the other side are all either dead or surrendered or negotiate a peace.

[tml12]

I think that I've found an article that pretty much sums up the whole Afghanistan issue

http://www.thethoughtsalesman.com/node/10

For the most part, that is a solid article.

Canadians can afford to think that this is a country that doesn't need a military as long as the U.S. is around to defend Canada. If Canada had any other country as their neighbours, this peacekeeping myth would never have taken shape.

Prime Minister Harper has shown real leadership on military issues.

[Army Guy]

At one time the Canadian military was a world renowned fighting organisation. Feared, respected and under equipped, they fought with bolt action rifles in France and The Netherlands against German machineguns and assault rifles, and managed great victories. Canadian Peacekeepers made our nation proud and built our armed forces reputation as a world class military organisation that conducted themselves with dignity and could be trusted not to break the rules of war or commit atrocities.

Years of cutbacks and disinterest turned them into a joke

This is maybe how Canadians view thier military, with great disinterest and bar room jokes....But ask any of the other militaries now serving in Afgan or any part of the world for that matter and thier opinion on Todays Canadian soldiers and our military and they will sing another tune...This is reflected by which country they request when the shit hits the fan. We are a world renowned professional fighting force, that can be counted on at anytime, for anything.

We've always been under equiped, and undermanned, not because it makes us look tougher, or all of our assigned military taskings easier but because that is all the Canadian tax payer will dole out. Every penny the military pry's out of them has been earned by it's soldiers own blood...let that sink in awhile..Soldiers actually have to die in battle before we the tax payer gets off our beer induced fat asses and shells out additional monies for new and safer equipment, equipment that we should have had in the first place.

The great Canadian myth "peacekeeping" and making Canadians proud, BS...peace keeping was cheaper, easier to embrace by liberal minded persons and tree huggers alike, hell even had op plow shares fooled....and yet how many canadian soldiers have died or been wounded during peace keeping duties under fire by hostile forces...

The article makes it sound that todays military does not conduct themselfs with dignity nor can they be trusted to adhere to the conventions...to this i say once again B..S... walk a mile in my boots before slamming this nations military forces, we give 110 % of everything we own, to our nation including our lifes if call upon....we ask for very little in return, and recieve very little of that.

I'll sum it up right here, do not blame todays soldiers for Our nations short comings, it belittles thier sacrafice, it belittles thier efforts...want someone to blame, blame the government and it's lack of vision, or commitment..., blame the tax payer for not being vocal or voting for the wrong people....

[M.Dancer]

This is maybe how Canadians view thier military, with great disinterest and bar room jokes....But ask any of the other militaries now serving in Afgan or any part of the world for that matter and thier opinion on Todays Canadian soldiers and our military and they will sing another tune...

At one time the Canadian military was a world renowned fighting organisation. Feared, respected and under equipped, they fought with bolt action rifles in France and The Netherlands against German machineguns and assault rifles, and managed great victories.

Not sure who from whom you quoted this but it shows a startling lack of knowledge about Canada and the war.

To wit, Only one nation in the second world war had a semi automatic service rifle and the Lee Enfield was it match in every way. The Garand has a small magazine that makes a loud clunk when the last round is fired. On top of that, you couldn't use a charger clip to top up it's magazine.

The german soldier was armed with a bolt action rifle, and a very good one at that. Of course they also had sub machine guns, so did we, the Sten and the Thompson. They also had medium and heavy machine guns, so did we, the Bren and the Vickers. The one thing that neither the Germans, The canadians or the Americans had were assault rifles.

The Canadian army during the second world war was as well equipped as any in the field.

[uOttawaMan]

Not sure who from whom you quoted this but it shows a startling lack of knowledge about Canada and the war.

To wit, Only one nation in the second world war had a semi automatic service rifle and the Lee Enfield was it match in every way. The Garand has a small magazine that makes a loud clunk when the last round is fired. On top of that, you couldn't use a charger clip to top up it's magazine.

The german soldier was armed with a bolt action rifle, and a very good one at that. Of course they also had sub machine guns, so did we, the Sten and the Thompson. They also had medium and heavy machine guns, so did we, the Bren and the Vickers. The one thing that neither the Germans, The canadians or the Americans had were assault rifles.

The Canadian army during the second world war was as well equipped as any in the field.

You think the German StG44 wasn't an assault rifle????

[Army Guy]

M.Dancer:

Not sure who from whom you quoted this but it shows a startling lack of knowledge about Canada and the war.

Sorry, for the rant, should not drink beer and post at the same time. I understand the guys piont, even agree with it somewhat, it's just the way he worded his opinion that rub me the wrong way.

salesman

[M.Dancer]

You think the German StG44 wasn't an assault rifle????

It was an assault rifle, sort of. But it really never made it to the field in great numbers as it didn't go into full production till 1944. On the otherhand, the precursers, the MP43 (machine pistol), and MP 44 were made in large numbers.

On top of that, it round was closer in size to a pistol than to a rifles making it more of a beefed up SMG than an automatic rifle.

[AngusThermopyle]

The next submachine gun design to emerge was the MP43 or Machine Pistol 43 from a design developed in 1943. It fired a less powerful cartridge and had a lighter recoil as a result. However, Hitler, still thinking that troops needed a weapon capable of firing 2000 yards, ordered that production of the weapon not start. The German arms minister, however, knew the need of the new weapon, and changed the name to "Machine Pistol", which is what the Germans called their submachine guns like the US Thompson .45 cal. The trick worked and the weapon went into production at three factories and German troops all over the Eastern Front were clamouring for the new weapon. The whole affair was blown" when a few divisional commanders asked Hitler at a conference when they would get the new weapon. Hitler was furious and ordered an investigation. Luckily for the men that had disobeyed the Fuehrer, the results of the investigation were so encouraging about the new weapon that Hitler changed his mind and announced that henceforward the weapon would be called "Sturmgewehr" or Assault Rifle. This was the world's first ever assault rifle.

It actually was the worlds first assault rifle. One thing the Germans could never be faulted upon was their superlative and innovative engineering.

[uOttawaMan]

It was an assault rifle, sort of. But it really never made it to the field in great numbers as it didn't go into full production till 1944. On the otherhand, the precursers, the MP43 (machine pistol), and MP 44 were made in large numbers.

On top of that, it round was closer in size to a pistol than to a rifles making it more of a beefed up SMG than an automatic rifle.

True, but an assault rifle by nature is an intermediary between a SMG and a duty rifle. As such it uses a smaller round than a standard issue duty rifle, and has a shorter effective range, but at the same time, a longer range than a SMG.

That's my interpretation of an assault rifle anyway.

[M.Dancer]

True, but an assault rifle by nature is an intermediary between a SMG and a duty rifle. As such it uses a smaller round than a standard issue duty rifle, and has a shorter effective range, but at the same time, a longer range than a SMG.

That's my interpretation of an assault rifle anyway.

Well, my only experiances are with the FN-C1, the M-16, and the Sterling SMG. I suppose the FN wouldn't be considered an assault rifle becasue of it's size and weight....

....on a side note.....I trained with the precursers of the LAVIII....the old Grizzlys...they had gun ports on the side but our FN would have ben too long to use them. I was told they were designed with the shorter M-16 in mind....and of course, they were designed in Canada.

This was in 1981

[M.Dancer]

If anyone has any questions about what the continued foreign military presence in Afghanistan serves, this one Afghani says it well.

“Afghanistan will fall back into anarchy,” he said. “Anarchy will bring back safe havens to terrorists, among other things, and terrorists will then hurt you back there in Canada and the United States. Simple as that.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...918.wkarzai0918

It should be highlighted that he doesn't say Go, and we will have peace. He says stay. In other words, we are wanted there by the Afghanis who are committed to peace.

[uOttawaMan]

Well, my only experiances are with the FN-C1, the M-16, and the Sterling SMG. I suppose the FN wouldn't be considered an assault rifle becasue of it's size and weight....

....on a side note.....I trained with the precursers of the LAVIII....the old Grizzlys...they had gun ports on the side but our FN would have ben too long to use them. I was told they were designed with the shorter M-16 in mind....and of course, they were designed in Canada.

This was in 1981

You would know better than I! I only get to see / handle assault rifles... if we seize one. Which has happened... never.. while I've been working.