Afghan mission "doomed to fail"

Catchme · January 11, 2007

Army.ca is a private site, it is not a government website.
As well please don't try to demoralize our troop's by spreading misinformation which does nothing but make the general public think all of the troop's are neo-nazi's or nazi sympathizers.

So what if it is a private site, not a government site? Military personal are government employees and let me tell you if I saw a Hitler quote used a motival factor on a government employees web site I would be just a furious.

Obviously, they have a lot of quote up 1400 odd quotes, but I question having one of Hitler's up as a moralizing factor.

And I am NOT spreading misinformation, as I said as soon as someone can tell me how to up load the screen shot to the net so I can link to it here, I will.

As I said prior, I think you are trying to deflect the topic away from what our troops are doing in Afghanistan and nothing more.

So, why do you not make some comments on the topic and on: how Harper was warned back in June NOT to use US tactics in Afghanistan, or there would be blow back, he did and there was. And now the Harper government are trying to scurry back to "reconstruction" because they know they messed up big time.

Canadian Blue · January 11, 2007

So what if it is a private site, not a government site? Military personal are government employees and let me tell you if I saw a Hitler quote used a motival factor on a government employees web site I would be just a furious.
Obviously, they have a lot of quote up 1400 odd quotes, but I question having one of Hitler's up as a moralizing factor.

How do you know that they are using it to boost morale. You don't, look at the anti-war quotes as well.

And I am NOT spreading misinformation, as I said as soon as someone can tell me how to up load the screen shot to the net so I can link to it here, I will.

Just give a link.

So, why do you not make some comments on the topic and on: how Harper was warned back in June NOT to use US tactics in Afghanistan, or there would be blow back, he did and there was. And now the Harper government are trying to scurry back to "reconstruction" because they know they messed up big time.

By a lobby group, not by our military general's and the CDS.

They didn't mess up, we had to confront the Taliban.

Once again how can we do reconstruction while the Taliban is firing RPG's at us, and ambushing convoys?

As I said prior, I think you are trying to deflect the topic away from what our troops are doing in Afghanistan and nothing more.

You are taking quotes out of context to make it look like we blow up farm house's for no good reason. That's misinformation.

madmax · January 11, 2007

Even our Leopard Tanks cannot go up the mountains any better than the Soviet Ones.

Catchme claims that tanks are being used to smash through Afghan buildings and such, but, of course, doesn't support that assertion with anything

Then respond to Catchme in her post. If you are going to quote me and respond to Catchme, take a hike.

and you say that the tanks won't be effective. Here, too, I think pictures help to clear things up
Tank driving on paved road

Tanks on gravel road

Tank driving through dirt in open area

Tanks out in open dirt area

Tanks on gravel road up in hillsTank driving on dirt road in Operation Baaz Tsuka (AKA Operation Falcon's SummitTank and LAV III observation post at Ma'Sum Ghar

I said..."Even our Leopard Tanks cannot go up the Mountains any better than the Soviet Ones." That is the Quote you have chosen to respond to with pictures showing me what a tank is capable of. I have been in a Tank, you don't have to show me pictures of a tank on a Gravel or Paved road. I said MOUNTAINS.

Also, from what I've read, the Leopards have more powerful engines than the Soviet tanks thus giving them an advantage. Obviously, there are limits, but I think by looking at the surroundings in the pictures, it's clear to see that there are areas in which they are suitable.

Oh get over yourself. The Leopard Tanks particularly the newest versions are arguably the best tanks in the world. These powerful engines won't do bugger all in the mountains. This was the comment, and yes Tanks can operate on a Battlefield in Afghanistan. Is this some sort of surprise?

I think the government should replace the Leopards with Leopard 2A6s or Challenger 2s, G-Wagons with RG-31s, phase out the Bisons, and consider giving some of the old equipment to the Afghan army once replaced.
I also think the Canadian government should seriously consider buying some Buffalos. It's the American response to IEDs. Besides having good armor and a v-shape hull to deflect a blast away from the vehicle, it also has a 30 foot robotic arm that can be used to clear threats from a safe distance. The US is already using them in Afghanistan and Iraq. The video in the link shows a huge explosion going off next to one, and everyone inside survived.

You should ask for a job in the aquisitions department of the DND now that you are an expert.

Also, I've seen plenty of pictures of Afghan kids surrounding soldiers and their vehicles, and they don't look intimidated at all. LAV IIIs aren't exactly small either, and they don't keep the tanks in the city. They drove them through, at first, to let any idiots Taliban in the area know that they are there, and then stationed them in the surrounding area.

Surprisingly enough, I can find pictures of Iraqi Children on US tanks, early pictures, and Lebanese SHia Families rallying around Israeli tanks back before the days of Hezbollah.

This is your opinion of course.

Yes it is. And I stand by it

The majority of people that are treated by Canadian medical facilities are Afghan civilians and soldiers, and yes, I can provide a source to verify that if requested.

There is only 2,200 troops. How many in the Medical Facilities? Afghans have been receiving foreign doctors and medicare long since the departure of the USSR. I am not certain, who other than Afghan Civilians and Soldiers would be treated by Canadian Medical Facilities?

In contrast, the Taliban don't care who gets hurt when they attack and make no effort to help the wounded. I don't think that fact is lost on everyone.

That is where we differ. The Taliban don't have to care, and we do. But it will make no difference.

The idea that everyone thinks the same way because of something like ethnicity I simply reject. It's a gross generalization.

No I don't believe that all ethnics think alike. It is a gross generalization. However, you wish to think that the various different Afghan factions will think like you do or westerns do, and this is just not gonna happen. If this was the case, Hamid Karzai would have more support. You would be listening to Rawa, which has the most western leaning values of any movement. But Afghanistan is a mesh of the Good the bad and the Ugly.

With alot of bad and alot of ugly wielding the power.

Catchme · January 11, 2007

And why you are trying to cover up the Hitler quote on army.ca, and saying that Canada's military has not been primarily peace keeping I have no idea! Other than to perhaps take the conversation further off topic regarding what our miltary is doing in Afghanistan.

I'm not covering up the Hitler quote on army.ca, it can be seen by everyone.

Oh so now you're saying it can be seen by everyone after denying it was there?

Our military has not been primarily peacekeeping, that's what 30 year veteran's have told me, as well as most NCO's. Being a part of the military I know that we do some peacekeeping, but it's not our primary role.

Oh so now you are ignoring all the historical data I put up? Including the veteran's comments at peacekeeping.ca?

No, I'm simply trying to stop some civilian lying about what our military is ACTUALLY doing in Afghanistan, and providing the fact that member's on here who have actual military experience [armyguy] have shown how you have you used misinformation with regard's to Afghanistan.

No, I think army guy and others like yourself, have been using disinformation here along the lines of the Iraq Information Minister and the US Military. And so what if I am a civilian now, or if I am any other Canadian civilian saying anything, we have a right to do so you know, and it is NOT lies, and stop ignoring the tons of evidence I have put forth.

It is a breach of privacy, especially in today's apparently world.

Telling us which posting's and what your trade is, is not a breach of privacy. Especially since your the one who said that you were a member of the military, and now your making these claim's.

So we should be able to question your military experience, if you do have military experience.

My personal life is not up for investigation thanks, I know full well how small the military is, and my saying anything would surely point those interested to me, so how about if you stay on topic, and stop calling me a liar.

You all have had to retract your calling me a liar so many times, one would think you would finally stop.

madmax · January 11, 2007

I've been told by numerous instructor's that Canadian's have never been trained as "peacekeepers" but as fighting soldiers.

I wasn't trained for any "peacekeeping".

I think that the Martin Liberal's were going to extend it, why would they send the CF down to the south if they were going to pullout in a few month's.

And just like Martin, Harper went into this thing head first. Which is why there was dialogue in sending Sailors into the landlocked country to drive military vehicles, so other forces could engage the enemy.

White Doors · January 11, 2007

This link is all you need to prove yourself wrong white doors.

http://www.peacekeeper.ca/pk1a.html

haha Yes catchme, read SLOWLY.. We have participated in peacekeeping. Any moron knows that. That said the CF's priorities have never been on peacekeeping. Ironically your own links prove this - thank you for that. this above link depicts our peacekeeping missions that we have been involved in. What's your point?

If that is not enough try:

More on peace keeping focus

This link details our Nato commitments. Peacekeeping is mentioned in one paragraph out of the whole article and isn't mentioned in the conclusion at all. thanks for proving my point for me.

or:

http://www.cmhg.gc.ca/cmh/en/page_717.asp?flash=1

and then there is this:

50 Years of Canadian Peacekeeping, Peacemaking and Peace Support
The “50 Years +, Canada and Peacekeeping: History, Evolutions and Perceptions,” conference, slated to occur at the University of Ottawa from 11-14 May 2006, is forging ahead. Other than the OHC, the sponsors include the Royal Military College of Canada, the University of Ottawa, Carleton University, the Canadian War Museum, the United Nations Association in Canada, and the Department of National Defence.

...Ottawa participated in every United Nations peacekeeping mission from the Suez Crisis until the end of the 1980s.

By then the Soviet Union was dying and with it the long Cold War. For a time everything seemed possible. Then, quickly, what had seemed to be a new international order crumbled into disorder.

Peacekeeping seemed more relevant than ever as it took on multiple meanings in the 1990s: election-watching; preventive deployments; the implementation of peace settlements; humanitarian and human rights mandates; nation building, with civilian aspects like the training of police; and even enforcement of UN Security Council resolutions.

Experts talked of “second generation” peacekeeping to distinguish between traditional UNEF-style activities, usually involving the monitoring of arrangements between consenting states, and innovative and possibly very intrusive operations which would not always have the approval of the parties on the ground. Increasingly, with a growing emphasis on nation building and more forceful rules of engagement, peacekeeping adopted traits more commonly linked to counterinsurgency operations and low intensity conflict.

Peacekeeping had been supplemented by peacekeeping plus.

Canada was the leading practitioner of the old art, and the government seized peacekeeping plus as well. Prime Minister Brian Mulroney championed the responsibility to protect the world’s downtrodden long before it became the centerpiece of Paul Martin’s international policy.

http://www.orghistcanada.ca/main.php?l=en&c=e

Canadian foreign policy after 1945 would focus on international security.

Again, you fail to make your point which was all the Canada has focused on (and presumably SHOULD focus on) is peacekeeping. you are failing miserably, as usual.

So, please try to stop rewriting Canadian history!

The only thing you are proving is your own historical bias. PLUS I wasn't aware that Canada started in 1945.

weird how facts work eh?------------------------------------------------------------------

And absolutely NOT, why would I afford someone the ability to breach my privacy, answer I would not!

That is because you are a liar, plain to see for everyone here. You do not have to sacrifice your privacy to prove it and you know it. You are a pathetic liar and are breaking the law.

Canadian Blue · January 11, 2007

Oh so now you're saying it can be seen by everyone after denying it was there?

I never denied that it was there, I said you were spreading misinformation about military member's by using one quote of over a 1000.

Oh so now you are ignoring all the historical data I put up? Including the veteran's comments at peacekeeping.ca?

No, we have been involved in peacekeeping. But strangely enough all of the NCO's and 30 year veteran's I've talked to have said our military primary role is not peacekeeping.

No, I think army guy and others like yourself, have been using disinformation here along the lines of the Iraq Information Minister and the US Military. And so what if I am a civilian now, or if I am any other Canadian civilian saying anything, we have a right to do so you know, and it is NOT lies, and stop ignoring the tons of evidence I have put forth.

I highly doubt you have ever been a part of the Canadian Military. As for the military propaganda, I usually get all of my information from the media, however I do come into contact with articles from military publication's as well.

Armyguy is not a propaganda officer, he is in the infantry.

As for the information put forward, it is usually out of context, and you making claim's about Canadian troop's killing civilian's in order to inflate the Taliban deathcount is just slander as far as I'm concerned.

My personal life is not up for investigation thanks, I know full well how small the military is, and my saying anything would surely point those interested to me, so how about if you stay on topic, and stop calling me a liar.

The base I am currently at has nearly 2,000 members, and it's not even that big of a base.

I highly doubt you were in the military, and the fact you can't even say what trade and base you were at is proof of that since I wouldn't be able to do much with that information.

You all have had to retract your calling me a liar so many times, one would think you would finally stop.

Somebody who obviously is lying about military service is a liar. As well I highly doubt that any military training you did would be soley focused on peacekeeping, as most military member's are trained to engage in combat and fight wars.

Catchme · January 11, 2007

Can Blue, would link if I knew how to upload it to a site to link to, know it can be done just have never done it. Again having a Hitler quote put up on a site that is affliated with our Canadian Military is nasty! Those quotes appear to be up lifting and moralizing quotes, trying to suggest they are not is well...

BTW, they did blow up the grape drying hut on purpose because they could, the article I provided was quite clear on that.

You said your self earlier that the Military had advised Chretien against Afghanistan, you mean they changed their mind?

So what if it is a think tank advising harper against following uS military tactics, they were right. Too bad Harper didn't listen.

This is starting to remind me of the denials of the US military surrounding their actions in Iraq.

Why do you find it so hard to believe that former Candian military personal are against the way Harper is conducting actions in Afghanistan? Or that we would be against the illegal Iraq War either?

the Polaris Institute revealed just how much this commitment has distorted Canada's role in the world. The decision to support the US in Afghanistan (which the Liberals admit was done to appease the US over our decision to stay out of Iraq) has already cost $4.1 billion since Sept. 11, 2001.
What happened to peacekeeping?

Afghan and related operations account for 68 percent of the $6 billion spent on international missions during that time frame. Equally disturbing: according to Polaris, during that same period Canada devoted a mere $214 million, about three percent of international mission spending, on United Nations missions. Our "peacekeeping" is a joke: We now have just 59 military personnel devoted to UN missions. Canada, which virtually invented peacekeeping, once ranked among the top 10 contributors to UN missions in terms of military personnel. We are now 50th.

Equally important, however, is the actual nature of this farcical "humanitarian" effort. So few investigative journalists know the facts or will tell them, it is not surprising people are bamboozled by the warmongers. But one who does have the jam to tell the story is columnist Eric Margolis. He is worth quoting:

"Afghanistan's complexity and lethal tribal politics have been marketed to the public by government and media as a selfless crusade to defeat the `terrorist' Taliban, implant democracy, and liberate Afghan women. Afghanistan is part of the `world-wide struggle against terrorism,' we are told.

"None of this is true. In 1989, at the end of the Soviet occupation, Afghanistan fell into anarchy and civil war. An epidemic of banditry and rape ensued. A village prayer leader, Mullah Omar, who lost an eye in the anti-Soviet jihad, armed a group of `talibs' (religious students), and set about defending women from rape. Aided by Pakistan, Taliban stopped the epidemic of rape and drug dealing that had engulfed Afghanistan, and imposed order based on harsh tribal and Sharia religious law."

The Taliban stopped the production of opium and heroin -- except in the area controlled by the Northern Alliance: the thugs, drug pushers and rapists who are now Canada's "allies." The Taliban were hardly humanitarian and imposed an extremely harsh Sharia regime on the country. But with them gone, the epidemic of rape has returned and our "allies" are responsible for 80 to 90 percent of the world's heroin.

Wrong from the start

It is important also to revisit the original relationship between the US and the Taliban and the US invasion. The US poured millions into Taliban coffers until, says Margolis, about four months before 9/11. It was only cut off when the regime refused to sign a contract with US oil giant Unocal to build a pipeline south from the Caspian Basin to Pakistan. It is also surely relevant that the Taliban knew nothing of the plan to attack the US. (The plot was hatched in Germany.) Much was made of the fact that the Taliban refused to hand over Osama bin Laden to the US. But Bin Laden was a national hero wounded six times in the anti-Soviet struggle -- which the US financed. When the Taliban offered to turn him over to an international tribunal upon seeing evidence of his guilt in 9/11, the US refused. And then invaded. This was by any international legal standard a totally illegal war, which could only have been justified if Afghanistan threatened the US. It is also an illegal occupation.

This is the "mission" that Stephen Harper, Yankee sycophant and budding warmonger, has "extended." The mission is not intended to ever end because its purpose was and is to ensure the US permanent access to Mideast oil and Afghani land for pipelines. But end it will -- just as every other colonial occupation of Afghanistan has ended -- when the occupiers tire of bleeding. Too bad dozens of Canadian soldiers, who should be peacemakers, will have to die to teach us an old lesson.

Why we should be out of afghanistan

M.Dancer · January 11, 2007

After all the proof I provide to you regarding peace keeping being Canada's military primary role you have the nerve to say otherwise?

I haven't seen the proof, but I bet it isn't the totality of the proof available. Becasue peacekeeping has never been misson one.

The was a great op ed by retired general Lew MacKenzie awhile ago....he sumed it up nicely. While there were a few thousand troops committed to a peacekeeping at one particular point in time, there were 10 thousand facing the wersaw pack in Germany........

Gen. Lewis MacKenzie: Sorry, at the height of our peacekeeping reputation in the 70s and 80s — when we had around 1,500 soldiers deployed on UN missions — we had 10,000 others deployed on the Central Front with NATO armed with nuclear weapons both air-to-ground and surface-to-surface. At the end of the Cold War, peacekeeping was no longer applicable as it only worked when countries went to war because those countries were represented at the UN with delegations with whom you could deal. As an example, what the UN is doing in the Congo as we speak is NOT peacekeeping. The UN forces are fighting and killing various rebel groups alongside government forces.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...geRequested=all

madmax · January 11, 2007

I'm not expecting CIDA to make any major changes in Afghan society anytime soon and talk of a Marshall Plan is comical. Development aid hasn't worked in Africa and it most certainly isn't going to work in Afghanistan.

If you say so, but the talk of others suggest we stay 60 years or more.

The Taliban gave sanctuary and sustenance to Al Qaeda. It was imperative that we remove the Taliban and ensure such a regime does not take root again in Afghanistan or anywhere else.

You had a good quote earlier, showing the culture. Of course, history shows that the Pashtuns once giving sanctuary/protection under their roof are loath to back off. Removing the Foreign fighters occurred swiftly, as they fled towards Pakistan and the Mountains. The regular Pashtuns have bled back into their tribes and into their villages. Pakistan is not a country with such a code, and notice how the supply of foreign fighters have increased, whereas the handing over of "Al Qaida" Catches have decreased. It is no coincidence.

I frankly think this is a perfectly legitimate objective and from what I hear, NATO is well along in achieving it.

I believe this is where we differ. I don't believe NATO is anywheres close to achieving its objective. I believe there is alot of ground lost in the last five years.

"As the Afghan war goes increasingly badly for the Western powers, President Hamid Karzai keeps blaming President Parvez Musharraf for allowing Taliban to operate inside Pakistan and launch cross-border attacks on Afghanistan. Musharraf fired back that Karzai was a figurehead who had no control of his country. Both accusations are true", says Eric Margolis In Toronto Sun.
"Tribal politics lie at the heart of their dispute. The 30 million Pashtuns (or Pathans), the world’s largest tribal society, are divided between Afghanistan and Pakistan by an artificial border, the Durand Line, drawn by divide-and-conquer British imperialists.

"Pashtuns account for 50-60% of Afghanistan’s 30 million people. The Taliban is an organic part of the Pashtun people. The Western powers and Karzai are not just fighting “Taliban terrorists,” but a coalition of Pashtun tribes and other allied nationalist movements. In effect, most of the Pashtun people.

"The other half of the divided Pashtuns live just across the Durand Line in Pakistan, comprising 15-20% of its population. Pashtuns occupy many senior posts in Pakistan’s military and intelligence services. Pashtuns, including anti-Western resistance fighters, never accepted and simply ignore the artificial border bifurcating their tribal homeland.

If the Taliban had never allowed al Qaeda into Afghanistan, NATO would not be in Afghanistan regardless of how many Buddhist statues the Taliban blew up.

I agree, and would add, if Al Qaida never attacked the US proper, NATO would not be in Afghanistan.

Organizing programmes in feminist studies at the U of Kabul will be for another day.

Perhaps you need to convince Jean Poutine whom you have lauded as a poster. He would disagree with you on this. I would think feminist studies are definitely on the backburner, but I don't want to stereotype

White Doors · January 11, 2007

2005 Defence Policy statement:

Link:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/reports/dps/facts/fs-land_e.asp

Look it doesn't even say the word 'peacekeeping' once! That warmongering martin!

LOL!

The land forces currently consist of about 34,000 personnel. They are also responsible for the 4,400 Canadian Rangers who provide a presence in sparsely settled, northern, coastal and isolated areas of Canada.
They are organized into four geographical commands – Western, Central, Quebec and Atlantic – and headquartered in Ottawa.

The land forces have already begun to transform into a modern, combat-capable, medium-weight force, to be based primarily on wheeled Light Armoured Vehicles (including the Mobile Gun System and the Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle to replace the direct-fire role of the Leopard tank), a new indirect-fire weapon system, and a new fleet of medium transport trucks.

With the new vision set out in the Defence Policy Statement, the Canadian Forces will become more relevant, responsive and effective. They will also strengthen their capacity to defend our security, protect our interests, and enhance Canada’s role on the world stage. The overall goal will be the ability to deploy the right mix of forces to the right place, at the right time, producing the right result.

To support this vision, the land forces will:

provide personnel and assets to support integrated Canadian Forces operations worldwide as part of the Special Operations Group, the Standing Contingency Task Force and Mission-Specific Task Forces;

develop the capability to sustain overseas, for an indefinite period, two land task forces, potentially in different theatres of operation, to form the land component of Mission-Specific Task Forces;

provide a smaller, third task force for a six-month period, either to reinforce a current operation or to mount a new short-term mission;

• increase the Reserves by 3,000 people. This will include completing Phase II of the Land Force Reserve Restructure Program (including the Medical and Communications Reserves), raising the authorized end-state to 18,500 personnel;

build on the mix of military and non-military skills resident in the Reserves (e.g., information operations, civil-military co-operations, and potential chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear response) and their nation-wide presence to support civilian authorities in responding to domestic emergencies in Canada;

complete the acquisition and development of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems, and integrate them into other Canadian Forces and allied sensor systems;

provide immediate response units of the Regular Force to Mission-Specific Task Forces on operations in Canada;

support the Government’s sovereignty and security objectives in the North by improving the ability of the Canadian Rangers to communicate with other components of the Canadian Forces and government agencies, and by increasing Regular Force sovereignty patrols in the region;

contribute to international missions undertaken by the UN, NATO, or coalitions of like-minded states;

provide a brigade headquarters, capable of commanding a multi-national formation for a year, as part of a larger Canadian international effort; and

improve the communications, mobility, firepower and support capabilities of the light forces so they can better integrate with the Special Operations Group and contribute more effectively to the Standing Contingency Task Force and Mission-Specific Task Forces.

Taken together, these initiatives will make Canada’s land forces more relevant, responsive and effective, and enable them to meet Canada’s security needs for years to come.

you lost AGAIN catchme.

Canadian Blue · January 11, 2007

Can Blue, would link if I knew how to upload it to a site to link to, know it can be done just have never done it. Again having a Hitler quote put up on a site that is affliated with our Canadian Military is nasty! Those quotes appear to be up lifting and moralizing quotes, trying to suggest they are not is well...

Not really, but it doesn't surprise me that you'd take one quote out of a thousand to rail against our soldiers.

As well what about all of the ANTI-WAR quotes that are used on the site. Especially with reference to Gandhi.

BTW, they did blow up the grape drying hut on purpose because they could, the article I provided was quite clear on that.

Yes it was, strangely enough you only took the quote which said the CF blew up the farmhouse, yet you made no mention of the Taliban in the post. Imagine that.

So what if it is a think tank advising harper against following uS military tactics, they were right. Too bad Harper didn't listen.

Right according to whose standards, Paul Martin and the Lib's knew full well of the casualties which were about to come. As did the top officer's in the military.

So it wasn't about Harper not listening, it was more about us willing to sacrifice something to create a more secure Afghanistan.

This is starting to remind me of the denials of the US military surrounding their actions in Iraq.

Except for the fact Afghanistan is UN sanctioned, all of NATO is there, and the fact their are much fewer casualties than Iraq.

As for the article, ask any soldier what he think's his primary role is, to defend Canada, or to become a peacekeeper.

Canada has always been a military which has prepared for war and engaged in combat. Peacekeeping has never, and never will be a primary role of the military.

I think it's pointless to show that Canadian's have primarily been involved in combat and defense operation's instead of peacekeeping, some people prefer to live in their own little fantasy world.

So in conclusion, the Canadian Military is primarily involved in defense and combat, however will sometimes be involved in peacekeeping.

madmax · January 11, 2007

Karzi = Taliban

Karzai doesn't equal Taliban. He is a Pashtun, and about as moderate of one as we are ever going see as a leader. Former President Rabbini, and other members of the government are indeed Taliban style Islamists.

But Karzai advocates negotiating with the Taliban/Pashtun leaders to attain peace and security. He is alone in this thought.

Particularily, our troops are NOW supporting a government doing exactly the same thing as the Taliban did. It is NO wonder Afghans are furious and want us out!
Lying Liars!

Afghans will want us out because that is their history. They also want government their way, which since the mid 70s long lost its secular and feminist nature. It isn't coming back soon. They want Islam not democracy, from the North to the south, short of those communist Uzbecks whom want neither of the above, just power. They want women covered, and women want to be covered for safety. But if women can choose the colours, and shop, then that is the progress at hand. Much Like Kite Flying and Radios, music. But the Fundamentalism and the Pashtun codes aren't going away, it is their way of life, There isn't anything our troops can do about this one way or another. They were bombed into the stoneage by the USSR and it's about the 12 century with electronics and cars today.

White Doors · January 11, 2007

The polaris Institute? They are left of the NDP for cripes sake.

Canadian Blue · January 11, 2007

Funny thing is that I read this article.

http://thetyee.ca/Views/2006/05/19/OutOfAfghanistan/

If you go to the bottom of the page the guy talks about us being the good guy's, yet probably has no military experience, and no experience on a UN peacekeeping mission.

madmax · January 11, 2007

No your piont was you signed up to peacekeep, To which i replied BS, And your quote about us being focused on Peacekeeping since the korean war is false, The military has always been focused on our NATO commitments, in europe and Norway, we have never had more than 2 Battle groups out of Canada on peace keeping duties and that was at the hieght of Yugo, when upto the early 90's we had 6000 soldiers in Germany on NATO duties, plus a Brig assigned to fly over to Norway, again both were in support of NATO duties.

I concur with the above.

Our focus has always been on war fighting skills, up until we decided to take on the Afgan mission and now we are focused on the 3 block war concept.

Is there a successful model for th 3 block concept?

Nice, your reaching now, this has already been address along time ago, yes the Afgan government has enacted the religous police again, but they do not operate under the same mandate as the once infamous Taliban did, they are there to assist with the Afgan popualation with religous and moral problems. really you should do some more reseach on this topic.

Imams assist with religious and moral problems. Religious police are just that. Religious Police as found in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Afghanistan. This is bone tossing to the fundamentalists and providing a job for the successful applicant. Don't softsell this, it's the culture, and its what the fundys want.

Catchme · January 11, 2007

Oh so now you're saying it can be seen by everyone after denying it was there?

I never denied that it was there, I said you were spreading misinformation about military member's by using one quote of over a 1000.

Yes you did, you said: "As well that is not quote 183, quote 183 is this" plus numerous other deflection comments.

Plus, you made an another interesting point as you said the site also quoted Gandhi, IMV that makes the quoting of Hitler even worse, as it likens Hitlers words to that of Gandhi's. I see no reson for anyone in the Canadian military, or even in the public domain to use Hitler's words for motivation.

No, we have been involved in peacekeeping. But strangely enough all of the NCO's and 30 year veteran's I've talked to have said our military primary role is not peacekeeping.

Ok, I think that in some ways, over some things we are disagreeing because we are coming at this from semantical differnces. Yes, I was trained fully in armoured combat. No doubt about it, it was combat training! Milcons and Waincons, that I participated in were/are combat training, as were all the other military exercises. What I am saying is our military focus, world wide in what we participated in, since the Korean Conflict was on observation and peace keeping, not on offensive campaigns. And again that is what I have been saying and proving.

As for the information put forward, it is usually out of context, and you making claim's about Canadian troop's killing civilian's in order to inflate the Taliban deathcount is just slander as far as I'm concerned.

I never said a word about inflating the Taliban death count, again you are putting words in my mouth, the fact that you people are in today's Canadian military is starting to scare me half to death actually.

The base I am currently at has nearly 2,000 members, and it's not even that big of a base.
I highly doubt you were in the military, and the fact you can't even say what trade and base you were at is proof of that since I wouldn't be able to do much with that information.

Oh, you could do a lot with any information I gave and I have probably given too much. I am not naive, nor am I lying.

I stand as saying: The only way we can truly support our Canadian Forces in Afghanistan is to bring them home! This is not our fight!

madmax · January 11, 2007

No way someone was ion the military and think Canada's prinmary role was for peace keeping. That is a myth propogated by the NDP and the Toronto Star.

That is a Myth gained through Canadian History, not the Star or the NDP. Peace Keeping is Canada's proud contribution to the world stage. It is one of the many reasons we travel the world with flags on our napsacks.

The problems with Peacekeeping are great when the sides don't want peace. Creating the conditions for peace and enforcing it with peacekeepers of neutral origins has been successful. Don't slam peacekeeping because it can be a difficult dirty and thankless job for the soldiers, like many other missions.

White Doors · January 11, 2007

our military focus, world wide in what we participated in, since the Korean Conflict was on observation and peace keeping, not on offensive campaigns. And again that is what I have been saying and proving.

EVEN if that were true (which it is not) Chapter 7 "peacekeeping" explicitly allows offensive operations.

More lies.

White Doors · January 11, 2007

That is a Myth gained through Canadian History, not the Star or the NDP. Peace Keeping is Canada's proud contribution to the world stage. It is one of the many reasons we travel the world with flags on our napsacks.

Not true.

When travellign in Europe THEy remember our contributions in WW2 & WW1. They, especially the Dutch, teach their children in School what we did for them. Too bad we didn't do the same here.

Canadian Blue · January 11, 2007

Yes you did, you said: "As well that is not quote 183, quote 183 is this" plus numerous other deflection comments.

Yes, you referred to the quote as 183, when it was infact 182.

It's not denying anything, simply pointing out some falsehoods.

Plus, you made an another interesting point as you said the site also quoted Gandhi, IMV that makes the quoting of Hitler even worse, as it likens Hitlers words to that of Gandhi's. I see no reson for anyone in the Canadian military, or even in the public domain to use Hitler's words for motivation.

So then how should we erase Hitler, and all of his speech's from history. As well should we take action against any website which features quotes from Hitler.

Not everyone is a politically correct fascist, and yes some people do use Hitler quotes to show the irony and hypocrisy in the quote.

Ok, I think that in some ways, over some things we are disagreeing because we are coming at this from semantical differnces. Yes, I was trained fully in armoured combat.

So you were in an armoured regiment, which regiment?

I never said a word about inflating the Taliban death count, again you are putting words in my mouth, the fact that you people are in today's Canadian military is starting to scare me half to death actually.

The fact that you were ever a part of Canada's military startles me as it seem's you wouldn't be able to hack it, especially considering how easily offended you get, and how little you know about combat.

Oh, you could do a lot with any information I gave and I have probably given too much. I am not naive, nor am I lying.

Well jeeze sherlock, not many people could really figure out too much with the info I gave.

I think you are lying, considering that you seem to be so unaware of any of the present day realities of the military, and the operation's we have been involved in.

I stand as saying: The only way we can truly support our Canadian Forces in Afghanistan is to bring them home! This is not our fight!

Strangely enough when we listen to what our troop's who have actually been overseas, they often say that we should stay in Afghanistan.

But I trust you know more from all of your left leaning peace sites about the actual situation.

This is our fight as we were also attacked on 9/11, and we are involved with NATO.

Canadian Blue · January 11, 2007

The problems with Peacekeeping are great when the sides don't want peace. Creating the conditions for peace and enforcing it with peacekeepers of neutral origins has been successful. Don't slam peacekeeping because it can be a difficult dirty and thankless job for the soldiers, like many other missions.

Look at Rwanda, when the Belgian's lost some troop's they immediately pulled out which weakened the UN's ability to stop the genocide.

Now we have people hear who are saying that Canada should do the same, which is pullout.

mikedavid00 · January 11, 2007

She is a liar of the worst sort. This type of parasite secretly has a smile on their face when Canada suffers casualties in Afghanistan - I guarantee it.

Yes. Left wing agenda oriented, CBC brainwashed, typical...

Canadian Self Hatred.

Air American the first left wing radio network in the US failed missereably because "American's couldn't stand to tune in and listen to constant self hatred towards their own country".

mikedavid00 · January 11, 2007

Peace Keeping is Canada's proud contribution to the world stage

That's a lie created by the CBC and Trudeau.

Canada is certainly NOT known to be peacekeepers thoughout the world. That statement you quoted is media brainwashing for political agenda which is an all too familar occurance in Canada.

Catchme · January 11, 2007

Yes you did, you said: "As well that is not quote 183, quote 183 is this" plus numerous other deflection comments.

Yes, you referred to the quote as 183, when it was infact 182.

It's not denying anything, simply pointing out some falsehoods.

Not a falsehood, and I am looking at the screen shot right now and it says 183, if they took one out since, not my problem, perhaps there was one there worse than Hitler's quote maybe I should've looked through them all. If you did not deny it you purposefully mislead people to think I was lying.

So then how should we erase Hitler, and all of his speech's from history. As well should we take action against any website which features quotes from Hitler.

Again, putting words in mouth, I did not say erase Hitlers words from history, I said having Hitler's words posted at a Canadian Military chat forum to be used as motivation quotes is NOT appropriate. And yes, I believe that ALL Canadians should be made aware that the current climate in the Canadian military supports the use of Hitler's words as motivational quotes.

Not everyone is a politically correct fascist, and yes some people do use Hitler quotes to show the irony and hypocrisy in the quote.

The quotes are not used to show hypocrisy and/or irony. Try again to be an apologists for the improper use. Also, I will ignore the fascist comment being directed towards me this once.

So you were in an armoured regiment, which regiment?

Not pertinent to discussion.

The fact that you were ever a part of Canada's military startles me as it seem's you wouldn't be able to hack it, especially considering how easily offended you get, and how little you know about combat.

Not pertinent, and it is not me who apparently is easily offended. We are not discussing, nor did we discuss, combat we are discussing Afghanistan and how our military needs to get out.

I think you are lying, considering that you seem to be so unaware of any of the present day realities of the military, and the operation's we have been involved in.

Think away, you again would be wrong and I could say the same for you not realizing the historical actions of our military. Plus, I do not need to prove anything nor receive your validation.