Afghan mission "doomed to fail"

[Catchme]

...Canadians DID NOT send out military there for retribution. Our military until 2003 was there for technical support, the Liberals ramped it up toappease the USA, and now Harper has gone well beyond the mandate that some Canadians agreed to send them there with...

This is patently false. Canadian Forces supported offensive operations starting in 2001 (Operation Apollo) via UN Security Council Resolution 1368.

Thanks for that info, I knew it to be false but didn't want to search for it.

Ah, Scribblet apparently you only read the patently false part, as the very next breath bush-cheney says is: "Canadian Forces supported offensive operations" Notice that UN Resolution 1368 desiginated Canadians as "supporting" offensive operations. Exactly, what I said they were doing. They were the support only, they were NOT the offensive operation.

So, we must presume then, that bush-cheney was saying my comment that Candians did not send our military there for retribution was patently false.

[bush_cheney2004]

Ah, Scribblet apparently you only read the patently false part, as the very next breath bush-cheney says is: "Canadian Forces supported offensive operations" Notice that UN Resolution 1368 desiginated Canadians as "supporting" offensive operations. Exactly, what I said they were doing. They were the support only, they were NOT the offensive operation.

So, we must presume then, that bush-cheney was saying my comment that Candians did not send our military there for retribution was patently false.

Are you joking and insulting Canadian Forces at the same time. What do you think a sniper is? What do you understand NATO's role to be?

Canada not only supported offensive operations...it executed offensive operations.

[Canadian Blue]

Of course, they should be judged as being wrong if they shot him/another 3 times in the chest, by your own admission, they would not have been following "proceedures" had they done that. That would've have signified they were at the very least being "hot shots" or reacting to fear, either one should not be governing the day over there.

Actually you're not very familiar with ROE's. If you believe that a person is threatning you, and can back that up then you are allowed to shoot if the person is non-compliant and making threatning gestures.

If someone was speeding a car directly towards a convoy that I was in and refused to stop after warning shot's, then by all mean's it is correct to fire on the vehicle.

[Catchme]

Bouquets go out from me, to a Canadian Unit in Afghanistan, for doing the correct thing instead of just killing fiirst and asking questions later:

They followed proper procedure, needless to say though if someone was speeding towards me despite three warning shot's and hand gestures and yelling tell him to do so, the Canadian's shouldn't be judged if they had shot him multiple times in the chest.

Canadian blue you said they followed proceedure, this meeans shooting to kill even after warning shots is NOT proceedure. Or were you wrong?

[madmax]

How long will it be before educated.....

North Korea wants Nukes they are a solid Muslim majority country.

OH MY GOD NORTH KOREAS GONE MUSLIM!!! I will now replace Fearless Leader Kim Jongs outfit to proper Muslim Attire.

[Canadian Blue]

Canadian blue you said they followed proceedure, this meeans shooting to kill even after warning shots is NOT proceedure. Or were you wrong?

The reason why is simple, I'm not a good enough shot to hit the leg, and the chest is the best area to hit. If my life, or the life of other's was in danger I would have no other choice, especially if I had followed the ROE's. I love people that try to tell cops and soldiers they should shoot a person in the foot or the hand, but that doesn't work.

Here's the thing, are you saying members of the military don't have a right to defend themselves now, because if you're being threatened you don't lay down you're weapon and wait to see if they'll blow you up.

Ah, Scribblet apparently you only read the patently false part, as the very next breath bush-cheney says is: "Canadian Forces supported offensive operations" Notice that UN Resolution 1368 desiginated Canadians as "supporting" offensive operations. Exactly, what I said they were doing. They were the support only, they were NOT the offensive operation.

So all we provided was Combat Service Support, if so then why did we send so many combat arms personal to Afghanistan...

Supporting, so taking part in offensive operation's as well, ever hear of that Canadian sniper who broke the world record in Afghanistan.

[weaponeer]

Some people on here should really learn something about the military before they make foolish, amateurish comments.

It is really easy to hide behind a computer, in your home, safe & sound and cry about what Canadian soldiers should and should not have done. Some people here have never faced the business end of an AK47, RPG etc... It is really easy to make foolish comments knowing you'll never have to face reality in A-stan, or anywhere for that matter.

[Catchme]

Canadian mainstream media has been promoting our role in Afghanistan, with almost no critical voices, despite polling that indicates between 48% to 62% of Canadians not only question but oppose our engagement of troops in this war-torn country (Ipsos-Reid, Mar. 4/06; Strategic Counsel/Globe and Mail, Feb. 24/06).

The 'post-Harper trip' polling results have been misrepresented because Strategic Counsel found that, while views had shifted due to a heightened campaign by the military and the media, 69% want a "debate to decide if our troops should stay in Afghanistan beyond next year" and 70% base their support on the misconception that our purpose is significantly more "peacekeeping than combat." In fact, the new polling finds that "52 per cent of Canadians say they are against a 10-year mission" (Globe and Mail, Mar. 14/06).

HERE ARE TEN VERIFIABLE FACTS THE MEDIA HAS AVOIDED

Brief Overview:

FACT #1: Jean Chretien & Canadian Corporations Involved in Trans-Afghan Pipeline

FACT #2: Gordon O'Connor, Defence Minister, Is Former Military Lobbyist

FACT #3: Current Afghan Parliament Includes Warlords and Drug Lords

FACT #4: Afghan Warlords Considered Bigger Threat Than Taliban

FACT #5: Afghan Women Face Repression Despite Removal Of Taliban

FACT #6: Elected Afghan Woman Faces Death Threats For Speaking Out

FACT #7: Since the U.S.-led War, Afghanistan Is Increasingly Hooked on Heroin

FACT #8: U.S. And Coalition Forces Using Excessive Force & Arbitrary Detention

FACT #9: Canada Complicit In Violation of Human Rights For 'War On Terror'

FACT #10: U.S. Finds More Oil and Gas Reserves After 4-Year Search

FACT #1: FORMER PRIME MINISTER JEAN CHRETIEN AND CANADIAN CORPORATIONS INVOLVED IN NATURAL GAS PIPELINE DEVELOPMENT THROUGH AFGHANISTAN, IN COOPERATION WITH REPRESSIVE GOVERNMENT

In 2002: "An agreement has been signed in the Turkmen capital, Ashgabat, paving the way for construction of a gas pipeline from the Central Asian republic through Afghanistan to Pakistan. The building of the trans-Afghanistan pipeline has been under discussion for some years but plans have been held up by Afghanistan's unstable political situation. ... With improved regional security after the fall of the Taleban [sic] about a year ago, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan and Pakistan have decided to push ahead with plans for the ambitious 1,500-kilometre-long gas pipeline."

-- BBC News, Dec. 27, 2002

And in 2004:"Jean Chretien is advisor to the Bennett Jones, a Calgary-based law firm specializing in energy issues. He is also consul in another law firm Heenan Blaikie. In addition, Chretien is international relations advisor to PetroKazakhstan Inc., an energy firm based in Calgary with major interests in Kazakhstan and Caspian."-- News Central Asia, Sept. 4, 2004

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...&articleId=2125

It's not about pipelines eh?

FACT #9: CANADA COMPLICIT IN THE VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOR THE 'WAR ON TERROR'

"U.S. partners such as Britain and Canada compounded the lack of human rights leadership by trying to undermine critical international protections. Britain sought to send suspects to governments likely to torture them based on meaningless assurances of good treatment. Canada sought to dilute a new treaty outlawing enforced disappearances."

-- Human Rights Watch, Press Release, Jan. 18, 2006

Prime Minister Jean Chrétien addresses the nation after the United States launches military attacks in Afghanistan. Chrétien orders the Canadian military on full alert and offers the United States "certain commitments" that include "military humanitarian, diplomatic, financial, legislative and domestic security initiatives."

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...50804/20060807/

for Stephen Harper, understanding Afghanistan seems almost irrelevant. But it is relevant, because this is a war that Canada and the West cannot win, any more than Britain and the Soviet Union could before us. And Canada will share disproportionately in its ultimate loss in terms of dead and wounded, billions of dollars wasted, and our international reputation sullied for a long time to come. It will go down in history as one of our country's biggest foreign policy disasters.

Stephen Harper's contempt for Canada and what it became in the decades following the Second World War is firmly on the record. Most of his comments--his sneering dismissal of our egalitarianism and sense of community--relate to social programs like Medicare. He once described Canada as "a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its social services to mask its second-rate status."

It was not until recently that he revealed his disdain for Canada's three decades of peacekeeping. In a CBC interview conducted as Parliament resumed sitting in September, Harper showed that he relished the fact that Canadian soldiers were war-fighting, and dismissed Canada's peacekeeping history as virtual cowardice: "For a lot of the last 30 or 40 years, we were the ones hanging back." He even mused that the deaths of Canadian soldiers were a boost for the military--cathartic after years of not being able to kill or die like real soldiers. "I can tell you it's certainly engaged our military. It's, I think, made them a better military, notwithstanding--and maybe in some way because of--the casualties."

http://www.policyalternatives.ca/MonitorIs...cfm?pa=DDC3F905

And the following is more than accurate:

But of course Harper will not talk about military integration, because that debate would damage an already unpopular engagement. In order to sell Canadians on our war-fighting mission in Afghanistan, the Harper government resorts to language that reduces the debate to an adolescent level. By constantly repeating phrases like "we can't cut and run" and we won't leave "until the job is done," or "we have to support our troops" or we "can't let the terrorists win," Harper hopes to frame the debate so that nothing substantive ever gets discussed. These are the kind of arguments you find among adolescent boys fighting in schoolyards: too immature and too driven by their testosterone to actually think straight about the consequences of their actions.

It might be productive if every conversation about Afghanistan had to begin with a quotation from Benjamin Franklin: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." At least it might lead those discussing the war to delve a little deeper, to examine Afghanistan's social and political structures, its history and, most importantly, the record of the West in creating the current horrors

.

So our role there was NOT Peace Keeping eh?

Canada takes charge of Afghanistan peacekeeping

CTV.ca News Staff

Canada has taken command of the force of international peacekeepers in charge of maintaining security in Afghanistan's war-battered capital.

Canadian Brig.-Gen. Peter J. Devlin assumed command of the Kabul Multinational Brigade in a ceremony at the brigade's headquarters Thursday....Defence Minister John McCallum acknowledged on Thursday that the mission is far more dangerous than the typical United Nations peacekeeping operation. He said Canadians are prepared for casualties among their soldiers.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...1058438133705_3

However, on October 13, 2003, the Security Council voted unanimously to expand the ISAF mission beyond Kabul (Resolution 1510). Shortly thereafter, Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien said that Canadian soldiers (nearly half of the entire force at that time) would not deploy outside Kabul.

http://www.answers.com/topic/international...ssistance-force

And why were they not deployed outside Kabul? We were NOT participating in offensive operations. This did NOT change until 2005

[scribblet]

Some people on here should really learn something about the military before they make foolish, amateurish comments.

It is really easy to hide behind a computer, in your home, safe & sound and cry about what Canadian soldiers should and should not have done. Some people here have never faced the business end of an AK47, RPG etc... It is really easy to make foolish comments knowing you'll never have to face reality in A-stan, or anywhere for that matter.

Arm chair critics, always know more than those actually involved, great hind sight too. -

[bush_cheney2004]

And why were they not deployed outside Kabul? We were NOT participating in offensive operations. This did NOT change until 2005

Nonsense....I don't know what kind of semantics game is being played, but Canadian Forces were engaging the enemy and killing bad guys "outside of Kabul" long before 2005, and doing it quite well. Bravo Zulu.

I remember a story about the US awarding Bronze Stars (medals) to Canadians for meritorious service under fire, but to do so meant admitting that Canadian Forces actually killed people...can't have that. LOL!

[Canadian Blue]

Some people on here should really learn something about the military before they make foolish, amateurish comments.

It is really easy to hide behind a computer, in your home, safe & sound and cry about what Canadian soldiers should and should not have done. Some people here have never faced the business end of an AK47, RPG etc... It is really easy to make foolish comments knowing you'll never have to face reality in A-stan, or anywhere for that matter.

Weaponeer the funny thing is that the person making those foolish comment's has claimed to be in an armoured regiment...

So our role there was NOT Peace Keeping eh?

So we were peacekeeping under NATO.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...&articleId=2125

It's not about pipelines eh?

According to that website 9/11 was also an inside job, when you post a link, get one without paranoid conspiracy theory nutjobs.

[weaponeer]

I seriously doubt she was ever in an armoured regt.....

[diablo]

While there are some 4 thousand Catholics and 9 thousand protesants in North Korea they are no longer allowed religious freedom.The country is Buddist and Confucianist.Both churches are state run and mainly for show.The only religiously allowed freedoms within North Korea are Muslim.The state believes and trusts Muslim leaders enough to allow them those libertys.That is why I describe them as a Muslim country.

[Army Guy]

Catchme "AKA POSER"

I still do not understand why you continue to spread your poison about afgan when your facts have either been misleading or just false. You know absolutily nothing about this topic, and your views are distorted by half trurths or lies.

I've made it my new mission in life to expose you for the POSER that you are. Nobody i repeat nobody that has spent 5 min in the military could be as un inform as you have. Save your self some embrassment now and atleast goggle your info... Is that true your now claiming to been in the Armour Regt...God help us all.

And why were they not deployed outside Kabul? We were NOT participating in offensive operations. This did NOT change until 2005

Your reading the material but not getting the full gist of the articals, the link below is from DND new and mission briefs, it will explain in detail what we are doing in Afgan then and now. Canadian military forces have been involved in combat operations since we have hit the ground...

DND page

It's certainly too bad the Canadian military did not HOLD FIRM on what they were doing there in the first place, and instead let themselves be swayed and sucked into by US military thinking, and commenced to conduct themselves accordingly. Perhaps things would've have been much better for Afghans if they had remained on the mandate that Canadians had atually approved of!

This has been explained over and over again, we are doing combat, humanitarian, and polictical missions all at the same time hence why there is a Battle group, and a PRT group. we have been doing this for some time now, and have not changed our mission despite what you may think.

[tml12]

Army Guy,

You must forgive some posters on this board that refuse to accept the reality of the mission in Afghanistan. Know that there are many posters here who do recognize the complexities of the mission and support the troops with thoughts, prayers, and support. We are behind you 100%.

[White Doors]

Army Guy,

You must forgive some posters on this board that refuse to accept the reality of the mission in Afghanistan. Know that there are many posters here who do recognize the complexities of the mission and support the troops with thoughts, prayers, and support. We are behind you 100%.

Hear hear!

[White Doors]

I also like how cathcme has the balls to say that SHE knows more of what is going on there than armyguy.

She has been proven wrong so many times it's ludicrous. Her links are going weirder and weirder by the day. Getting more desperate.

[Catchme]

LOLOLOL.... we all know that only those with no leg to stand on attack the poster!

Now this is going to be interesting to watch, is Bush really wanting this for Afghanistan or is he going to do the end shuffle around Nancy, get the money and approval and send them to Iraq?

U.S. House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi led a delegation of six other congressional Democrats to Afghanistan on the weekend, and heard from Afghan President Hamid Karzai that his security forces need to be stronger as the two discussed possible American troop increases. Mr. Karzai stressed his desire for increased training and equipment for Afghanistan's fledgling army and police forces. The two also discussed plans announced last week by the Bush administration to extend the tour of 3,200 soldiers and ask Congress for $10.6-billion (U.S.) for Afghanistan, a major increase aimed at rebuilding the country and strengthening government security forces still fighting the Taliban five years after the U.S.-led invasion.

Because after all they are asking the Afghans to play nice with Pakistan when they see pakistan as the ones bringing this upon them.

At the Kandahar peace jirga Saturday, in preparation for the larger cross-border assembly to come, shouting, fist-waving and bitter words revealed the huge difficulties theprocess faces.

Almost every public figure in Afghanistan believes Pakistan is fomenting the insurgency in their country. Despite the government staffers handing out glossy posters featuring white doves and symbols of cross-border friendship, the Kandahar peace jirga sounded, at times, like a council of war.

Truth or lies?

While at home, our military struggles with freedom of speech and participation issues about Afghanistan:

When some 2,500 people braved snow and ice to form a massive Canadian flag at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown as a part of an emotional farewell to soldiers departing for Afghanistan, it seemed like patriotism at its best.

There was only one problem: many attendees were forced to participate in the rally.

An e-mail to base employees stated, “All military and civilian personnel not in an essential service position or undergoing training are required to attend the ceremonies.”

...Forcing staffers to attend an event, which clearly confuses support for the troops with support for the war, is crucial for the home-front public relations offensive military officials are waging against an increasingly skeptical population.

Even more important is this:

During my interview with MacCleary and his wife Samantha, public affairs officer Lieutenant Desmond James, a clean-cut Navy man with sharp eyes, watches closely. After asking the standard questions about training, feelings and worries, I try something a little different.

“In 2005, Major General Andrew Leslie went on record saying 'Afghanistan is a 20-year venture' because 'every time you kill an angry young man overseas, you're creating 15 more who will come after you.' By this logic, don't you think the occupation is misguided?” I ask.

Sapper Bruce MacCleary answers the question intelligently. We shake hands and walk our separate ways. MacCleary starts talking to public affairs officer Lieutenant James. Moments later MacCleary returns and asks to withdraw his answer.

“Soldiers don't comment on policy or rules,” said public affairs officer James, when asked why Mr. MacCleary wasn't allowed to give his opinion on the subject for which he's risking his life.

makes one wonder if those here saying they are military actually are telling the truth about anything.

“I believe the media have been focusing on the negative stuff too much,” said Sapper Bruce MacCleary, as the public affairs officer nods in agreement. Soldiers can give their opinions when they intersect with the party line, but the government doesn't support or trust the troops enough to let them speak freely. “Families would like to see and hear more about the reconstruction,” said MacCleary.

Afghan families would also like to see more reconstruction. But the money hasn't been forthcoming to make this happen. According to the NDP's Jack Layton, “For each $1 we're spending in Afghanistan, only 10 cents goes to aid and reconstruction, while the other 90 cents goes into combat,”

Can you support the troops but not the war?

[southerncomfort]

I also like how cathcme has the balls to say that SHE knows more of what is going on there than armyguy.

She has been proven wrong so many times it's ludicrous. Her links are going weirder and weirder by the day. Getting more desperate.

Thats what happens when your from rabble.ca

[southerncomfort]

name='Army Guy' date='Jan 29 2007, 10:00 AM' post='180476']

Catchme "AKA POSER"

I still do not understand why you continue to spread your poison about afgan when your facts have either been misleading or just false. You know absolutily nothing about this topic, and your views are distorted by half trurths or lies.

I've made it my new mission in life to expose you for the POSER that you are. Nobody i repeat nobody that has spent 5 min in the military could be as un inform as you have. Save your self some embrassment now and atleast goggle your info... Is that true your now claiming to been in the Armour Regt...God help us all.

Thank you armyguy and anyone else in our forces on here you are doing great work. Don't let the rabble get you down.

[Army Guy]

LOLOLOL.... we all know that only those with no leg to stand on attack the poster!

Well poser, stop making claims that you can't prove or are false and i'll play nice.

Because after all they are asking the Afghans to play nice with Pakistan when they see pakistan as the ones bringing this upon them.

So which is it poser, you've been preaching the Afganis blame NATO for all thier problems, now your blaming the Pakistanis, are you shifting directions or slowly coming around.

While at home, our military struggles with freedom of speech and participation issues about Afghanistan:

Your making a big deal out of nothing, thier are no freedom of speach issues in the military at all, in fact most CO's incourage soldiers to talk to the media, but to keep from commenting on issues they have no knowledge of or were not involved with. Infact the line you've highlighted is the reporters opinon his attempt to lead the readers some where else, twisting the soldiers words or in this case mislead the soldiers comments.

Soldiers can give their opinions when they intersect with the party line, but the government doesn't support or trust the troops enough to let them speak freely.

No where does it say that the Public relations officer cut the sappers comments or edited his comments. The reporter just added his two cents worth because that is what he percieved, not what was said. There is not many reporters here that soldiers will not talk to because of just that.

makes one wonder if those here saying they are military actually are telling the truth about anything.

You've yet to prove that in any of your posts, infact you've proven to be a very unreliable source of info on just about everything. Stick to topics you know.

As for forcing military and cilvilian employees being told to attend a function, Are you joking, Last time i checked the military pays thier wages and if they want them to attend a function on work time then they go, end of story. As for those that are going to whine and complain about having to go to a function and support those that they may never see again, i say there is the unemployment line, they've got the wrong job...

You of all people know there is plenty of functions that military members are not given a choice to attend, Nov 11 is one, showing up to say good bye to comrads is another...But then again to the uneducated in military matters there must be a story there. When there is truely not...

[weaponeer]

Ther's a lot of military experts on this site. Never served, do not know anything about it, but experts none the less:)

[tml12]

Catchme,

Your posts get more delusional as the days go on. We've got academics and military people all giving you straight facts.

How much of Canada would you let Denmark borrow on "long term lease" if you were PM?

[Fortunata]

Newsworld had a program on tonight about the Taliban done by an English journalist. He interviewed Taliban, Al Qaeda and a 15 year old suicide bomber recruit. He went on patrol one night with American soldiers in a valley; one soldier said they were supposed to have a full company, about 120, and there were actually about 50 holding this valley against an estimated 1000 fighters, not including the farmers, etc. that picked up their AK's at night to join the fight.

[Who's Doing What?]

Newsworld had a program on tonight about the Taliban done by an English journalist. He interviewed Taliban, Al Qaeda and a 15 year old suicide bomber recruit. He went on patrol one night with American soldiers in a valley; one soldier said they were supposed to have a full company, about 120, and there were actually about 50 holding this valley against an estimated 1000 fighters, not including the farmers, etc. that picked up their AK's at night to join the fight.

I saw part of that. It is a shame that these Americans have been forsaken in favour of the more visible war in Iraq. As the one Officer put it: "It is the forgotten war."