TravellingTimeMachineSalesman Posted October 3, 2006 Report Posted October 3, 2006 When it come around to the application of plain old common sense, it seems the officials in Ottawa have fallen quite short! With Canadian soldiers fighting and dying in Afghanistan why was the "Canadian Airborne Regiment" disbanded, these are the ideal "para-commandos" we need to hunt down the Taliban insurgents in the hills especially near the Pakistan border. We need to be hunting down and wiping out these zealots right in their strongholds! Instead they are allowed to flee across the border, infiltrate with additional jihadi reinforcements and additional weapons to kill NATO soldiers, and Afghan civilians. This was the same sort of stupid, idiotic policy sanctioned by politicians that was allowed in Korea, and Vietnam of allowing the enemy a "previleged sanctuary" that prevented victory. And what about helicopters instead of using 'Leopard Tanks'? Didn't the Israelis find out to their sorrow that tanks don't work well in the rocky terrain in Afghanistan? Quote
M.Dancer Posted October 3, 2006 Report Posted October 3, 2006 And what about helicopters instead of using 'Leopard Tanks'? Didn't the Israelis find out to their sorrow that tanks don't work well in the rocky terrain in Afghanistan? When were the Israelis in Afghanistan? Didn't the Russians to their sorrow find out that helicopters couldn't replace soldiers on the ground>? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Wilber Posted October 3, 2006 Report Posted October 3, 2006 And what about helicopters instead of using 'Leopard Tanks'? Didn't the Israelis find out to their sorrow that tanks don't work well in the rocky terrain in Afghanistan? Never knew the Israelis were in Afghanistan, when was that? We don't have any helicopters, at least not of the gunship variety. We do have tanks and they can do things that helicopters cannot. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
M.Dancer Posted October 3, 2006 Report Posted October 3, 2006 We do have tanks and they can do things that helicopters cannot. Like go through tunnels......or is that the trains on the island of Sodor? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
M.Dancer Posted October 3, 2006 Report Posted October 3, 2006 My mistake...it's the trains 17. Thomas and the RumoursWhen Thomas hears that the local school children's playground is closed due to bad soil, Thomas wishes for help. Meanwhile, there's rumors among the engines that Harold the Helicopter will replace them, as the Fat Controller is using him to take an important visitor around the island. While trying to prove he's better than Harold Gordon runs into a tunnel and has an accident discovering new fresh sand. Gordon is alright, and it's revealed that Harold was taking the visitor around the island to find a suitable spot for a new playground. The tunnel sand is used, and the playground is opened Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
TravellingTimeMachineSalesman Posted October 3, 2006 Author Report Posted October 3, 2006 Room, did you read my correction? The Israelis were in South Lebanon NOT Afghanistan!! Their state of the art "Merkava" main battle tank was not only useless with the support of infantry but vulnerable to the wire guided ATGMs that the "Hezbollah" guerrillas were using. Even the Russians found that their T-72, T-80s and their PT-76 tank were ineffective most of the time in the mountainous terrain. This is why they began using their elite "Spetznatz" as "hunter-killer" teams to go after the"mujahideen" columns. Canada should get troop carrying helicopters rather than tanks!!! Quote
geoffrey Posted October 3, 2006 Report Posted October 3, 2006 Canada should get troop carrying helicopters rather than tanks!!! That's the Dutch contribution. There is a significant difference between our operations in Afghanistan and the Soviets. We are invited and welcome, the Russians were not. We will be successful, the Soviets were not. Quote RealRisk.ca - (Latest Post: Prosecutors have no "Skin in the Game") --
M.Dancer Posted October 4, 2006 Report Posted October 4, 2006 To be precise, the soviets were also invited by the afghans....to help prop up the client communist gov't (Mohamad Sadar and then the PDPA) in Kabul....Once invited, like guests who saty too long.... ....it could be argued that NATO is doing the exact same thing ...EXCEPT...there is a significant difference..... ......today's government, for all it's shortcomings, is Elected.....the PDPA came to power through a coup. The pro soviet gov't of the day was almost universally unpopular with the ultra conservatives and the rural population...what with the enforced modernization programmes like allowing girls to go to school, freedom of religion and state farm collectivization....they were easy to despise. Because of the position of the west (it had nothing to do with freedom fighters) we only hear about Soviet military fighting, but then as now, afghan gov't troops did a lot of the fighting. The US decision to thwart the soviets (as opposed to aiding the afghans) can be seen in hindsight as shortsighted...... But I'm sure back in 1980, in Moscow, a jackobi Laytonivitch was urging the soviets to return to their traditional role as economic advisors and builders.....while in Canada and the US, marxists were demonstrating outside the US embassy to stop meddling in AFghanistan...I still vaguely remember the chant...it went something like... dee da, defend, doo da, extend the revolution......... I thought, how charming.....marxists defending imperialism....and then I looke to see if there were any good looking commies (heck, I was only 22.....) Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
TravellingTimeMachineSalesman Posted October 5, 2006 Author Report Posted October 5, 2006 The gov't in Ottawa needs to spell out to the public what we are in Afghanistan for, what we are trying to accomplish and explain in no uncertain terms that failure is not an option!! A major emphasis should be added that the people of Afghanistan need our help, that shouldn't be hard to do. Quote
geoffrey Posted October 7, 2006 Report Posted October 7, 2006 The gov't in Ottawa needs to spell out to the public what we are in Afghanistan for, what we are trying to accomplish and explain in no uncertain terms that failure is not an option!! A major emphasis should be added that the people of Afghanistan need our help, that shouldn't be hard to do. If people would listen, the government talks about the mission daily. I don't this war cry from the NDP that the government needs to explain the mission better, it's frankly very clear. Those that say it's not been explained enough are simply taking a cop out in their quest to have the troops withdrawn and all that hard work thrown down the drain. Quote RealRisk.ca - (Latest Post: Prosecutors have no "Skin in the Game") --
Biblio Bibuli Posted October 7, 2006 Report Posted October 7, 2006 There is a significant difference between our operations in Afghanistan and the Soviets. We are invited and welcome, the Russians were not. That's because we brought our wallets with us, the Russian cheapolas didn't. Quote When a true Genius appears in the World, you may know him by this Sign, that the Dunces are all in confederacy against him. - Jonathan Swift GO IGGY GO!
TravellingTimeMachineSalesman Posted October 12, 2006 Author Report Posted October 12, 2006 Canadians need to support our troops over in Afghanistan more, and our government will need more troops on the ground, along with increased funding and manpower for the PRTs that are trying to rebuild Afghanistan. Once thing is becoming crystal clear here we cannot leave without fulfilling the mission, and we will have to "stay the course" Quote
jdobbin Posted October 13, 2006 Report Posted October 13, 2006 Canadians need to support our troops over in Afghanistan more, and our government will need more troops on the ground, along with increased funding and manpower for the PRTs that are trying to rebuild Afghanistan. Once thing is becoming crystal clear here we cannot leave without fulfilling the mission, and we will have to "stay the course" Are you a member of the military? Quote
newbie Posted October 13, 2006 Report Posted October 13, 2006 "STAY THE COURSE" is a slogan not a strategy. Quote
TravellingTimeMachineSalesman Posted October 13, 2006 Author Report Posted October 13, 2006 No, I am not a member of the military! I am just a 'concerned citizen' who believes in the purpose of the Afghanistan mission. We cannot and shouldn't allow Afganistan to become another 'failed state' and future "AlQaedistan" and base for jihadis. Fulfilling the mission is in a kind of exit strategy that will leave the nation in better shape to handle future challenges they may face. Quote
jdobbin Posted October 13, 2006 Report Posted October 13, 2006 No, I am not a member of the military! I am just a 'concerned citizen' who believes in the purpose of the Afghanistan mission. We cannot and shouldn't allow Afganistan to become another 'failed state' and future "AlQaedistan" and base for jihadis. Fulfilling the mission is in a kind of exit strategy that will leave the nation in better shape to handle future challenges they may face. No matter how long Canada is in Afghanistan, it might be a tribal and dangerous place. Quote
TravellingTimeMachineSalesman Posted October 16, 2006 Author Report Posted October 16, 2006 More "boots on the ground", nix the Leopard tanks, and give the forces in Afghanistan "Griffens" or "Bell UH-1"s to ferry in "hunter and killer" teams who would seek out and destroy the Taliban along the Pakistan Border or whereever they are. General Armstrong Custer said it right, "Lets win the war,a nd get the hell out"!! Quote
jdobbin Posted October 17, 2006 Report Posted October 17, 2006 More "boots on the ground", nix the Leopard tanks, and give the forces in Afghanistan "Griffens" or "Bell UH-1"s to ferry in "hunter and killer" teams who would seek out and destroy the Taliban along the Pakistan Border or whereever they are. General Armstrong Custer said it right, "Lets win the war,a nd get the hell out"!! Didn't Custer get killed? Quote
TravellingTimeMachineSalesman Posted October 17, 2006 Author Report Posted October 17, 2006 Yes! However what he said before "Little Big Horn" has far and wide implication for Canada's mission to Afghanistan. We need to win the war against the Taliban and get our service personnel safely home!This will mean having to escalate the war and aggressively go after the Taliban along the Pakistan border. What we don't need is a Vietnam type quagmire thats costing lives. Now is there anything wrong with that? Quote
jdobbin Posted October 17, 2006 Report Posted October 17, 2006 Yes! However what he said before "Little Big Horn" has far and wide implication for Canada's mission to Afghanistan. We need to win the war against the Taliban and get our service personnel safely home!This will mean having to escalate the war and aggressively go after the Taliban along the Pakistan border. What we don't need is a Vietnam type quagmire thats costing lives. Now is there anything wrong with that? We can never go home if the Taliban hide in Pakistan and wait years to return. Quote
Argus Posted October 18, 2006 Report Posted October 18, 2006 More "boots on the ground" We are doing more than our share. I don't think Harper can dare put more troops in. Even supposing we had a lot more. nix the Leopard tanks, Can't hurt. And used correctly, could be quite useflul. Your comparison to what happened to the Israelis doesn't hold water. The mistake the Israelis made was sending in the tanks without infantry support. I think the purpose of the Leopards will be to support the troops with directed fire from behind. Besides, I haven't heard the Afghans have much in the way of sophisticated anti tank weapons. and give the forces in Afghanistan "Griffens" or "Bell UH-1"s Helicopters are on order, but that sort of thing doesn't get delivered overnight, nor do the pilots get the requisite training overnight. What they need to do is get better support from allied helicopters, or somehow contract for it with some kind of private outfit. General Armstrong Custer said it right, "Lets win the war,a nd get the hell out"!! Custer was a glory-hungry idiot who got his troops massacred by, in part, disobeying orders, and by grossly and arrogantly underestimating the ability of 'savages" to fight. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Wilber Posted October 18, 2006 Report Posted October 18, 2006 What kind of shirt did Custer wear? Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
ft.niagara Posted October 24, 2006 Report Posted October 24, 2006 We need to win the war against the Taliban and get our service personnel safely home!This will mean having to escalate the war and aggressively go after the Taliban along the Pakistan border. What we don't need is a Vietnam type quagmire thats costing lives. Now is there anything wrong with that? Afghanistan is a time machine gone backward. There is no winning in Afghanistan or in any Moslim country. It makes a great practice range for the military, and a great place to get some combat time for promotion boards though. Quote
TravellingTimeMachineSalesman Posted November 2, 2006 Author Report Posted November 2, 2006 Looks like helps is on the way if NATO and Canada can hang on until February! Poland has commited 1,000 troops to Afghanistan where hopefully they will be deployed to Kandahar and Helmand provinces. Notice the other NATO countries notably Germany, Italy, France notably aren't putting their troops into direct combat for some unlnown reason. Is that attributable to a shortage of 'body bags' or 'aluminum transfer cases'? Didn't Serbia offer use of their paramilitary police some time ago? Quote
ft.niagara Posted November 3, 2006 Report Posted November 3, 2006 'aluminum transfer cases'? Are they reusable? Quote
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.