Afghan mission "doomed to fail"

[White Doors]

I posted the link, you can find out who they are on your own, you are a big boy.

Not only did I read your link but I read between the lines.

They are helping them to do it 'on their own'. Canada is helping to train Afghani army and police everyday.

Yeah, right. The Afghanis were able to keep the Soviets out and now they need our training.

Unlike you, I am not a sucker for military propaganda.

Anything else?

Yes. Answer my questions.

1) What Afghanis are fighting?

2) Defend your poll. The methodology of this "poll" says that people were asked face-to-face. Do you think the pollsters sought the opinion of the people fighting too?

You think the Afghani's view us like they did the Soviets? haha

Military propoganda? yes, you are above all that. You just get suckered by the globe and mail eh?

The media has been spinning the mission in a negative light for a long time now so instead of being above the propoganda, as you like to believe, you are actually a victim of it.

1) The Army and Police. You can even SEE them with your own eyes at youtube fighting along side of the CDN soldiers.

2) The poll goes against your beliefs. If you wish to pursue your line of reasoning as correct, show me a poll that supports your assertions. I have posted on that supports mine and cathme was kind enough to post another one that supports my assertion.

ie: Me = 2 you = 0.

[Canadian Blue]

Yeah, right. The Afghanis were able to keep the Soviets out and now they need our training.

Unlike you, I am not a sucker for military propaganda.

No, they need to be trained in order to deal with insurgent's within their own country. I highly doubt a government want's troop's who only know guerilla warfare and that's it.

Many things have changed in the last 13 months in Afghanistan. Pulling out a spurious poll that is over a year old does not constitute proof of anything in today's Afghanistan. Particularily in the face of information coming out of Afghanistan currently including from WorldOpinion .org, which of course the person posting this out of date poll did not provide, as apparently it doesn't suppport the premise they are trying to erroneously push.

So according to the poll the Afghan's still want us there, is that what you're trying to say.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/art...pnt=269&lb=bras

[Catchme]

I posted the link, you can find out who they are on your own, you are a big boy.

Not only did I read your link but I read between the lines.

They are helping them to do it 'on their own'. Canada is helping to train Afghani army and police everyday.

Yeah, right. The Afghanis were able to keep the Soviets out and now they need our training.

Unlike you, I am not a sucker for military propaganda.

Anything else?

Yes. Answer my questions.

1) What Afghanis are fighting?

2) Defend your poll. The methodology of this "poll" says that people were asked face-to-face. Do you think the pollsters sought the opinion of the people fighting too?

Only the wilfully obtuse, would ignore the same orgs findings a year later showing that opinion had dropped over 20% within a year. Only the wilfully obtuse would ignore the fact the org would only sample those in secure areas and that only the friendly to foreigners would even be answering it.

Personally, I can’t see people disregarding the comments of duly elected Afghanis MP’s either. However, as was observed with the Iraq debacle, that certain peoples refused to believe how bad it was there until plausible deniability was impossible. The same is happening with Afghanistan, apparently.

[Charles Anthony]

1) The Army and Police. You can even SEE them with your own eyes at youtube fighting along side of the CDN soldiers.

Forgive me. I assumed you had the intelligence to figure out that I was not arguing your point but rather mine.

What Afghanis are fighting against The Mission?

2) The poll goes against your beliefs. If you wish to pursue your line of reasoning as correct, show me a poll that supports your assertions. I have posted on that supports mine and cathme was kind enough to post another one that supports my assertion.

-- and you can not defend the methodology of the poll you cited.

You asked for "Anything else?" up above and I asked you something else. You could not even answer the questions.

ie: Me = 2 you = 0.

Congratulations. You are your own winner.

Keep supporting the troops. Do you think they would benefit from somebody who can not answer questions??? Maybe they can.

[Canadian Blue]

Forgive me. I assumed you had the intelligence to figure out that I was not arguing your point but rather mine.

What Afghanis are fighting against The Mission?

Who is fighting against the mission, remnant's of the Taliban regime.

Keep supporting the troops. Do you think they would benefit from somebody who can not answer questions??? Maybe they can.

I'd imagine troop's wouldn't want some ignorant people to make false claim's about them being responsible for the famine in Afghanistan, and making sweeping judgement's without knowing the situation. I am not referring to you in particular but a certain feminist poster.

Only the wilfully obtuse, would ignore the same orgs findings a year later showing that opinion had dropped over 20% within a year. Only the wilfully obtuse would ignore the fact the org would only sample those in secure areas and that only the friendly to foreigners would even be answering it.

So are you saying the poll is incorrect and the majority of Afghan's want us out. Or is this once again based on nothing, like most claim's you make on here.

Personally, I can’t see people disregarding the comments of duly elected Afghanis MP’s either. However, as was observed with the Iraq debacle, that certain peoples refused to believe how bad it was there until plausible deniability was impossible. The same is happening with Afghanistan, apparently.

An Afghani is the currency in Afghanistan, Afghan are the actual people.

I already addressed the comment made by the MP's, they use to be in the former Taliban government. However this is not reflective of the Afghan Parliament, and once again if an MP here said something extreme it doesn't mean that all Canadian's hold the same opinion.

[Catchme]

C-blue you said that "Karzi wants us there", back tracking on that "dictatroship" comment of yours after the fact says much about the perceptions you hold regarding Afghanistan peoples independant voice.

BTW, you are also wrong re: Afghanis

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/afghanis

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/afghanis

It is used for both money and the peoples.

[Canadian Blue]

Actually I believe that Afghan is correct, I saw an episode of the office were they talked about it in depth.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/afghan

Either way, I don't want to have another debate on semantics.

C-blue you said that "Karzi wants us there", back tracking on that "dictatroship" comment of yours after the fact says much about the perceptions you hold regarding Afghanistan peoples independant voice.

Well, if Karzai is a dictator why was he elected by the Afghan people in a democratic election?

As well Karzai obviously does want us there, as does the majority of the Afghan people as the poll you provided has shown.

I'm not backtracking, however I'm simply responding to your baseless claim's and accusation's since you know very little about the Afghan conflict.

I'd still like to hear how the Leopard tank's somehow worsened the situation in Afghanistan.

[White Doors]

QFT:

As well Karzai obviously does want us there, as does the majority of the Afghan people as the poll you provided has shown.

[Jean_Poutine]

Nice that Peter MacKay is over in Afghanistan trying to make the optics look good back home, after the mess of the Offensive Operation Medusa and in spite of what is actually going on there. And what is really going there that Mackay is trying to cover up, you ask?

First of all, I'm not so sure that coming under rocket attacks in Afghanistan is the best way to get a photo op as you suggest. Second, he spoke out against Pakistans plans to use mines, which is consistent with Canadian policy given the Ottawa landmine treaty.

Speaking of mines, while Afghanistan is one of the most heavily mined countries in the world, roughly 1/3 of the millions of mines in Afghanistan have been cleared thanks to coalition forces that you show no respect for. Perhaps, you think it would be better if they didn't do dangerous work like that and let civilians get their legs blown off.

Four Canadian soldiers were killed in one battle during Operation Medusa because NATO tried to minimize the risk to civilians. They dropped pamphlets ahead of time to give warning, and called off air strikes. As a result, Canadian soldiers walked right into an ambush. That could have been prevented if they didn't give advance warning and used air strikes to soften the area up first, but that'd mean higher risk to civilians, and people like you would bitch about it. Effort was made to minimize the risk to civilians at increased risk to the soldiers, and you STILL bitch.

Funny how people of your ilk jumped at the Opportunity to call Operation Falcon's Summit a repeat of Operation Medusa, but since it wasn't, it gets omitted.

[White Doors]

Keep supporting the troops. Do you think they would benefit from somebody who can not answer questions??? Maybe they can

Hey

Just because you can't back up your illogical fallacies, don't get all blustery with me youngin.

Good post greasy, cheesy fries.

[jdobbin]

Eighty-one percent of Afghans said they think that al-Qaeda is having a negative influence in the world with just 6% saying that it is having a positive influence. An even higher percentage—90%—said they have an unfavorable view of Osama bin Laden, with 75% saying they have a very unfavorable view. Just 5% said they have a favorable view (2% very favorable). These levels were slightly lower in the country’s war zone, the eastern and south-central part of the country: three in five (60%) in those areas had a very unfavorable view of bin Laden.

This poll was conducted in 2005. At that time, Canadian support was also in majority support. 2006 was the most violent year since the war started. I'm not sure the stats would be the same.

Here is a 2006 poll:

http://www.asiafoundation.org/pdf/AG-survey06.pdf

In view of ongoing social, political, and economic shifts in the country, the survey

tried to gauge the national mood. Respondents were asked if the country is

moving in the right direction. Slightly less than half the Afghans surveyed (44%)

said they were happy with the progress and believed the country was headed in

the right direction while 29 percent said recent developments were a mix of the

positive and the negative. Twenty-one percent of the respondents said the country

was headed in the wrong direction and four percent were uncertain of how the

country was progressing. Optimism was greater among rural respondents.

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/...urvey09.art.htm

[Catchme]

This poll was conducted in 2005. At that time, Canadian support was also in majority support. 2006 was the most violent year since the war started. I'm not sure the stats would be the same.

Here is a 2006 poll:

In view of ongoing social, political, and economic shifts in the country, the survey

tried to gauge the national mood. Respondents were asked if the country is

moving in the right direction. Slightly less than half the Afghans surveyed (44%)

said they were happy with the progress and believed the country was headed in

the right direction while 29 percent said recent developments were a mix of the

positive and the negative. Twenty-one percent of the respondents said the country

was headed in the wrong direction and four percent were uncertain of how the

country was progressing. Optimism was greater among rural respondents.

My points exactly, and why would someone post a year old report in the first place? Especially when the same org had another newer one out. My only guess is that the newer one was not as supportive of a position that some wanted to present.

And thanks for the other stats links that show, indeed Afghans are growing angry at the failures of their invaders to full fill promises. Apparently Afghanis MP's saying so isn't good enough.

Part of the problem that is causing Afghans anger no doubt is this and other such things:

The new warmaking strategy ties the projects of non-governmental organizations and other civil society groups directly to the military effort. An article in the March 2006 issue of Walrus magazine explained:

One unique aspect of the new strategy is the way that development and humanitarian aid are being used specifically for the purpose of building loyalty toward coalition forces and democratic reforms. The American, British, and Canadian governments all have representatives from their international development and relief agencies stationed in Afghanistan; the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) alone plans to spend $616 million there by 2009....

The strategic use of aid [sic] may offend some, but this approach is gaining credibility and has been adopted by CIDA and Foreign Affairs.

Such abuse of foreign aid has prompted some highly reputable aid organizations to leave Afghanistan. Doctors Without Borders pulled out in 2004 after a 26-year presence delivering vital medical services to the civilian population. Marie-Madeleine Leplomb of the groups Paris office told Radio Free Europe, Given the multiplication of actors, how can the [Afghan] community recognize who is a humanitarian worker and who is doing intelligence? We are not credible anymore.

And yes, this started under the Liberals, but has gotten much worse under the CPC, as evidenced by the increased Canadian military deaths over the last year, and the decline in those Afghans supporting our occupation.

Making a mockery of Aid monies.

The BBC has a good link about the time line and person and things involved in Afghanistan with comments from around the world.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6212851.stm

Here is a link for those who do not understand the feminist view point on occupation of countries allegedly to help the women. Though it speaks of the USA the point is still the same.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=7519

[Canadian Blue]

Here's the thing, I agree we need more of a marshal aid program in Afghanistan. However, how can we do it, and balance the combat that need's to go on due to the Taliban's continued presence. If we pullout, I don't think the Afghan population will be better off, and I think we'll probably see a civil war between the North and South, which would only result in more death's.

As well the end goal is to leave Afghanistan, hopefully by 2010, however I don't think it would be right to leave the general Afghan population to the wolves. Then we'd see all of the progress which has been made gone.

[Jean_Poutine]

After suffering reading through Catchme's tripe posts, I would break it down into quotes and reply, but that's already been done.

A few things though:

What is obvious to most people seems to be lost on Catchme: Afghanistan was already one of the poorest countries in the world with one of the worst records on human rights - particularly womens rights. NATO did not create those conditions.

The mission in Afghanistan, however, is partly an attempt to do something about those conditions. There are 37 countries involved in military operations and 60 countries, as well as UN agencies, involved in development. That is just a fact, and you're welcome to check it. With regards to what Canada does, you should do some reading at the CIDA web site. Also, you should read about the Kandahar PRT, which Canada has extended to 2009.

The mission, however, isn't simply one of reconstruction. There are seven UN resolutions that authorize the military operation there which state that "Afghanistan is still a threat to international peace and security." Again, you're welcome to check to see that what I've said is correct. If you're too lazy to do so, I can explain to you where you can find the specific resolutions.

The point about tanks is moot. Before there were tanks in Afghanistan, when they ran into situations where they needed more firepower, they called in air strikes. The fighting in Operation Medusa was heavy and that was before they had tanks. In contrast, not a shot was fired in Operation Falcon's Summit and that operation involved tanks.

I never bashed our soldier, that is a red herring unworthy of this discussion. Stop putting words in my mouth.

No, you just blame them for pretty much everything that is wrong and omit anything positive, and what that is worthy of is contempt.

[Catchme]

Here's the thing, I agree we need more of a marshal aid program in Afghanistan. However, how can we do it, and balance the combat that need's to go on due to the Taliban's continued presence. If we pullout, I don't think the Afghan population will be better off, and I think we'll probably see a civil war between the North and South, which would only result in more death's.

As well the end goal is to leave Afghanistan, hopefully by 2010, however I don't think it would be right to leave the general Afghan population to the wolves. Then we'd see all of the progress which has been made gone.

Certainly, I appreciate what you are saying here regarding them not being better off, but really people need to think hard about that, and what it implies and whether there is truth in it.

Canadians need to think about things like the following and then make decisions about whether we should remain there, or withdraw and give them the money in unfettered aid:

1. Is our staying making things worse in the long run?

2. Considering the fact that what has been going on there for the last 2 years has caused Afghans to mistrust the occupation. And to greatly mistrust its supposed mandate, is there any hope that it will get better, as nothing has changed, it has gotten worse with offensives being conducted and Canadians driving around in tanks instead of conducting reconstruction activities. At least planes were/are not destroying fields and family farms as they pass by.

3. The problem seems to be Pakistan, so why haven't the Canadian government been putting pressure on well before this day? Or even would any pressure help in the first place?

4. Why are NATO troops guarding oil referneries and oil lines? Is our military the oil companies private army to protect their interests while Canadians tax payers foot the costs?

5. Afghans are survivors, and they throughout history have destroyed other nations finacially, I.e. Russia most recent, and Britian prior to that, when they have tried to colonialize them, so why are we there again?

6. It is their country, and they seem to want it back, and they seem to want it back even though they understand there may be a civil war.

7. Is this just an extension of the Holy Wars put on hold for a few 100 years, if so why are we there?

8. Why aren't our governments, either previous to this one, and this one acting credibly in Afghanistan?

9. If we stay longer, are we going to have to end up leaving anyway, or will we face launching a fullout war against the whole country all because some say: "we want to make things better for them so we have to stay"?

10. Our leaving would not be an act of cowardess and it is ridiculous for people to state that in any way or manner. Typical rule of thumb in life, government, business and social interaction is: if it is not working change it, you don't keep putting money, and in this case lives too, into the same old thing and expect different results. This failing occupation is no different and should not be judged so.

11. You don't commit suicide as you know your going to die, trying to help the plight of women and children by killing them and having them starve to death makes as much sense.

12. Our military personal on the ground is struggling to do the best they can, it is the governments that are not following through. They went to reconstruct and now they are faced with 1000's of dying women and children, are we doing what is righteous and good for our personal?]

13. Are we going to start running into every country in the world to allegedly save women and children?

These above, may, or may not, be my position on things there. I put them up as a starting place for people to think from and beyond. The situation deserves our upmost thoughts and personal internal analysis, as we are sending our children and others: children, fathers, mothers, extended family and friends to die, spending billions of dollars, and killing civilians in their own country. We need to hold a full vision, so we can act from a solid personal opinion on what we, as Canadians, want our minority government to be doing in regards to our efforts in Afghanistan.

[madmax]

Here's the thing, I agree we need more of a marshal aid program in Afghanistan. However, how can we do it, and balance the combat that need's to go on due to the Taliban's continued presence. If we pullout, I don't think the Afghan population will be better off, and I think we'll probably see a civil war between the North and South, which would only result in more death's.

As well the end goal is to leave Afghanistan, hopefully by 2010, however I don't think it would be right to leave the general Afghan population to the wolves. Then we'd see all of the progress which has been made gone.

I think you are beginning to understand the complexities of Afghanistan. It is why there has always been the possibility of Afghanistan turning into a quagmire. It hasn't happened yet, but this year, we have been sucked in deeper.

I really do believe that Afghanistan needed a Marshal style aid program. It could have been quite an accomplishment had it been taken seriously in 2001 after the invasion and complete route of the Taliban.

The fact that 50 years of co-operation was undermined by a NEO con policy towards Iraq and a fixation on Iraq after 2001 before the invasion of the country really set the trend for what the future of Afghanistan held.

There is still hope for Afghanistan. But it is complex, and I am not one for slogans or foolish politicians of either stripe.

I will post a few articles from the fall which capture the danger, and nature of the inhabitants.

[Canadian Blue]

I think you are beginning to understand the complexities of Afghanistan. It is why there has always been the possibility of Afghanistan turning into a quagmire. It hasn't happened yet, but this year, we have been sucked in deeper.

I have always understood them, I just don't think rhetoric is productive.

I really do believe that Afghanistan needed a Marshal style aid program. It could have been quite an accomplishment had it been taken seriously in 2001 after the invasion and complete route of the Taliban.

The fact that 50 years of co-operation was undermined by a NEO con policy towards Iraq and a fixation on Iraq after 2001 before the invasion of the country really set the trend for what the future of Afghanistan held.

Things are going well in the north of the country, Canada was doing alot of security in and around Kabul, however the south need's the most improvement. Hopefully we have killed enough Taliban off so reconstruction work can go ahead.

As well another problem was the American fixation on Iraq after Afghanistan, which was a major mistake on their part since Iraq was found to have had nothing to do with September 11 after the invasion.

The other problem is the fact that some European countries could be helping out in the south and don't want to risk the casualties, once we see them step up the situation could get better. However we shouldn't pull out by february, we should wait. If we can no longer be able to do anything militarily and our military is stretched to the limit we will have to pullout unless some of the European countries pick up the slack.

[Catchme]

I think you are beginning to understand the complexities of Afghanistan. It is why there has always been the possibility of Afghanistan turning into a quagmire. It hasn't happened yet, but this year, we have been sucked in deeper.

I have always understood them, I just don't think rhetoric is productive.

I really do believe that Afghanistan needed a Marshal style aid program. It could have been quite an accomplishment had it been taken seriously in 2001 after the invasion and complete route of the Taliban.

The fact that 50 years of co-operation was undermined by a NEO con policy towards Iraq and a fixation on Iraq after 2001 before the invasion of the country really set the trend for what the future of Afghanistan held.

Things are going well in the north of the country, Canada was doing alot of security in and around Kabul, however the south need's the most improvement. Hopefully we have killed enough Taliban off so reconstruction work can go ahead.

As well another problem was the American fixation on Iraq after Afghanistan, which was a major mistake on their part since Iraq was found to have had nothing to do with September 11 after the invasion.

The other problem is the fact that some European countries could be helping out in the south and don't want to risk the casualties, once we see them step up the situation could get better. However we shouldn't pull out by february, we should wait. If we can no longer be able to do anything militarily and our military is stretched to the limit we will have to pullout unless some of the European countries pick up the slack.

To be fair Canadian blue, you think your rhetoric is fine and productive, just not others. While others think their rhetoric is just fine while yours is not. That is why I avoid it.

I find your comment of "hopefully we have killed off enough Taliban so reconstruction work can go ahead", to be a fine example of rhetoric that is NOT productive. It says a surface comment that appears reasonable, but it does not take into account the realities of what is going on there and as such trivilizes wrongly.

How many women and children have died while NATO forces were hoping to kill off Taliban? How many of them were Taliban, or are just being reported as such? How many of them used to support NATO and then went to the Taliban?

Blaming other "European" countries, and the Taliban just does not cut it. That is scape goating and smoke screening.

There is a reason why other countries do not want casualities, and are NOT going on the offensive. The question should be: Why is Canada? Why is Canada risking its military personal, when others in the NATO alliance won't? Really, why are we NOW going against our NATO allies directions and why are we NOT following them by not risking casualities and by NOT going on the offensives?

Why does Harper think his government knows more than other NATO countries governments and military do? He has never been in power goverbning a country before, so he has zero experience, he has never been to war or been in the military even, he has a minority government, and yet he thinks he has the right to do things differently than our NATO allies?

Personally, I find this a little hard to take!

[White Doors]

How many women and children have died while NATO forces were hoping to kill off Taliban? How many of them were Taliban, or are just being reported as such? How many of them used to support NATO and then went to the Taliban?

Face it. You are a 'war is bad peace is good' person and that's it. It is one of the few things in your life that is 'black and white'. That's it - that's all. I'm sure you are all hip with women having abortions at 7 months along, but to actually FIGHT to advance human rights, you don't give a shit.

Oh, it's so easy when the world is like that isn't it? Please come down to the requisite category and give us your well thought out thoughts on what REALLY happened on 9-11.

Thanks!!

[White Doors]

Why does Harper think his government knows more than other NATO countries governments and military do? He has never been in power goverbning a country before, so he has zero experience, he has never been to war or been in the military even, he has a minority government, and yet he thinks he has the right to do things differently than our NATO allies?

Is the UK a Nato Ally? How about the US? The Dutch? The Aussies? The NZ's? Polish even?

Weird how FACTS work eh?

[Canadian Blue]

I find your comment of "hopefully we have killed off enough Taliban so reconstruction work can go ahead", to be a fine example of rhetoric that is NOT productive. It says a surface comment that appears reasonable, but it does not take into account the realities of what is going on there and as such trivilizes wrongly.

My apologies, but the Taliban are responsible for killing members of the organization I am a part of.

How many women and children have died while NATO forces were hoping to kill off Taliban? How many of them were Taliban, or are just being reported as such? How many of them used to support NATO and then went to the Taliban?

The American's were notorious for inflating enemy casualties in the Vietnam war [ex. Fallen Angels], however I am not aware of us doing the same.

I believe that the Taliban however have been more responsible for the death's of civilian's than we have. The Taliban kill's teacher's trying to do their job, so I don't have much sympathy for them.

Blaming other "European" countries, and the Taliban just does not cut it. That is scape goating and smoke screening.

There is a reason why other countries do not want casualities, and are NOT going on the offensive. The question should be: Why is Canada? Why is Canada risking its military personal, when others in the NATO alliance won't? Really, why are we NOW going against our NATO allies directions and why are we NOT following them by not risking casualities and by NOT going on the offensives?

The other European countries should be picking up some of the slack, because if we lose control of the south then the country will really be in Canada. As for why Canada is risking our personal, because we are meeting our obligation's and doing our part.

We have to risk casualties in the south because that area is more volatile, and that is where the Taliban operates, once again their is a huge difference between the peaceful north, and the south.

Why does Harper think his government knows more than other NATO countries governments and military do? He has never been in power goverbning a country before, so he has zero experience, he has never been to war or been in the military even, he has a minority government, and yet he thinks he has the right to do things differently than our NATO allies?

The defense minister has military experience. We made the move to the south under Paul Martin's Liberal's, and as I said before I remember in September of 2005 being told by NCO's that we better brace for more casualties. The entire Canadian public was warned about the additional casualties we would take, the fact Canadian's only took notice once we started losing troop's.

Our NATO allies should be helping down in the south, the Brits, American's, Dutch, and Canadian's, are all doing their part. Now we need Germany, Spain, and France, to do their part.

[Catchme]

Thank you Canadian Blue for your words am going to think on them and investigate your perspective, as I said we ALL need to look at this from as many view points as we can, we need to be an action, not a reaction.

[Canadian Blue]

However keep in mind though that NATO is very different from the Taliban. The Taliban don't follow the Geneva Convention, whenever we go to war or engage in combat we have to follow strict rules with regards to when we engage the enemy. It also seem's that we often will go above and beyond in order to minimize civilian casualties. The Taliban however is a completely different story, I know that if I was ever about to get captured by the Taliban I would save a bullet for myself.

As well I'm not defending the action's of those American soldiers who killed Iraqi civilian's in Iraq, but for a second try putting yourself in the shoes of a soldier who has just seen his friend blown to bit. Imagine the kind of mental state you would be in, and how you would react. I think it's extremely easy to judge back here in the comfort of our home, but I'd assume when your in a warzone, not sure if your going to run into an IED or an ambush, it would change your view on thing's.

[Army Guy]

Catchme:

I find your comment of "hopefully we have killed off enough Taliban so reconstruction work can go ahead", to be a fine example of rhetoric that is NOT productive. It says a surface comment that appears reasonable, but it does not take into account the realities of what is going on there and as such trivilizes wrongly

I don't think you truely grasp the situation over here in Afgan, for that matter i don't think alot of Canadians do. Thats due to the poor job our government and media have done reporting afgan to it's citizens.

These comments may have struck a cord with you and some others on this board but they speak of the truth and the current situation here in afgan today and yesterday. Our primary tasking here in Afgan is to restore a secure enviroment, given to us (Canadian soldiers) thru NATO and the elected Afgan government, to accomplish that tasking we must reduce the capbilities of the taliban, Al Quada, that includes engaging and destroying them. That may be rhetoric to you, but to me and thousands of other Canadians it is what we have been sent over here to do it is what our nation has asked us to do.

How many women and children have died while NATO forces were hoping to kill off Taliban? How many of them were Taliban, or are just being reported as such? How many of them used to support NATO and then went to the Taliban?

Are you suggesting that NATO including Canadian armed forces are deliberatly targeting women and children and just hoping to kill a few taliban in the process. And then counting those killed as taliban.

You've made it very clear with that statement that you are not aware of combat operations in Afgan. Very rarley does NATO get to pick the battle field that they are engage on. Canadian soldiers have died and been wounded on these very battlefields because we have not brought to bear all our combat assests in order to limit civilian cas, the opening of Op Mudusa case in piont.

I may remind you that this is combat, not a knitting circle, or surgical strike with magic bullets that only kill bad guys. i will tell you this that all our wpns sys engage only targets that are engageing us, and we are not wontonly spraying the area hoping to kill taliban. It is aimed fire at a hostile target, carry a wpn or anything that looks like a wpn and you will be engaged. It is a unfortunate fact that civilians are going to take cas it is part of war and a part of combat...but don't suggest that we take them lightly or that we deliberatly go out of way to target them.

There is a reason why other countries do not want casualities, and are NOT going on the offensive. The question should be: Why is Canada? Why is Canada risking its military personal, when others in the NATO alliance won't? Really, why are we NOW going against our NATO allies directions and why are we NOT following them by not risking casualities and by NOT going on the offensives?

Why, because we have signed on to the NATO agreement, no where in that agreement does it state ya we'll agree to assist you when your attacked but we will not take place in offensive operations. Lets make it clear that over 30 Canadian lives were taken on 9/11...that they the Taliban and Al Quada brought this attack to our doorstep...We also answered the call of the elected Afgan government to assist them in providing a secure enviroment for thier citizens and to assist in re-building thier nation. And inorder to do all that "first" we need a safe and secure enviroment. That can not happen if everyone is in camps waiting for the taliban to go just fade away.

What is the piont in getting involved if thats all Canadians want us to do...why even be here... Canadian soldiers don't sit behind the wire and watch thier allies do all the fighting we came here to help not sit around, now you may say this is not about what Canadian soldiers want ...we pay them to follow orders, SORRY, but just how many would volunteer under those guidelines, not many....

Why does Harper think his government knows more than other NATO countries governments and military do? He has never been in power goverbning a country before, so he has zero experience, he has never been to war or been in the military even, he has a minority government, and yet he thinks he has the right to do things differently than our NATO allies?

Personally, I find this a little hard to take!

One could ask the same question of many of our leaders, what military experience did crieten have, when he decided to send us here in the first place...hell he did'nt even like the military...Infact the military told him at the time that this mission was to complicated for our military...So don't blame this on harper when it was clearly the liberals that you have to thank...

[White Doors]

Don't waste your time Army Guy. She is a partisan hack playing politics with Canadian soldiers lives. she don't care one iota what you guys do because it doesn't fit in with her narrow view of the world.

She just wants to stamp her feet and make it ALL GO AWAY like a spoiled 6 year old child.