BS: Canuckistan vs Talibanistan????

Subject: RE: BS: Canuckistan vs Talibanistan????
From: 3refs
Date: 23 Oct 06 - 06:01 PM

This issue has now started to turn friend into foe! I'm not going to waiste anyones time beating my Canadian chest.

If you want a true insight into ones testicular fortitude, ask their enemy. During the First and Second World Wars, the Germans would go around the Canadians. "The only time we willingly engaged the Canadian troops was when they got in front of us when we were retreating!"

Subject: RE: BS: Canuckistan vs Talibanistan????
From: GUEST,dax
Date: 23 Oct 06 - 04:47 PM

Canadians have fought bravely but there is a big problem.
   1. There is no defined enemy and it is near impossible to tell friend from foe.
   2. The people are uneducated and most have no concept as to why Canada is there. Many see us as invaders.
   3. Canada has no defined goal for our troops to attain.
   4. There is no exit stratigy.
   5. A religion from the dark ages is not defined by borders and the Taliban are re-enforced by recruits from other places such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
   6. We are loosing too damn many fine young people trying to defend people who show no appriciation. It is time to come home!

Subject: RE: BS: Canuckistan vs Talibanistan????
From: GUEST,ashamed Brit
Date: 23 Oct 06 - 04:13 PM

I don't want to expound upon the arguments that have been discussed here for the prescence of NATO troops in Afghanistan, many of which I am in agreement with, but to vehemently dissociate myself, and I hope all decent minded British people, from the remarks made by The Badger yesterday.
My sincere apologies to my dear friends in Canada for the presence of someone who I feel has already been adequately described.

Subject: RE: BS: Canuckistan vs Talibanistan????
From: Metchosin
Date: 23 Oct 06 - 03:15 AM

gnu, on paper at least, we're in Afghanistan because of Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, to which Canada is a signatory. Article 5 states that if one signatory is attacked it would be regarded as an attack on the rest of the signatories.   

NATO was originally organized as a reponse to a possible threat by the Soviet Union. I'm not certain exactly why NATO forces were deployed in Serbia, but perhaps it was because it had nothing much to do after the disinteration of the Soviet Union and they wanted to keep their chops up.

The US chose to regard the attack on US soil of September 11, as an act of war, rather than criminal action by a group of extremists.

I guess if Canada had felt real testy after the attack on it's citizens on the Air India flight, it could have declared war on Sikh extemists and decided to bomb certain regions of the Punjab. In which case, if it could have got UN approval, the US and other members of NATO would have been bound as signatories to join in too.

However, there does seem to be some individual discretion as to just how much each signatory has to participate. Considering that the whole of Canada has about the same population as the state of California, it appears that our country is being comparatively ambitious.

I believe the US wanted to go into Afghanistan under NATO because NATO has to power to bomb stuff and because it gave it more control, automatic allies and a legitimacy that they might not have otherwise had, as an individual country.

Subject: RE: BS: Canuckistan vs Talibanistan????
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Oct 06 - 02:16 AM

Okay, here's my theory as to why Canadian troops are in Afghanistan...

To protect democracy? No...

To create a new democracy?   No...

To defend freedom? No...

To fight terrorism? No...

They are there because Canada is an economic fiefdom of the USA and is doing what the USA wants it to, lending a hand in securing vital strategic areas that mostly have to do with controlling the flow of oil out of the Black Sea region through Afghanistan. There are other concerns too, such as the international drug trade which is used to finance various high-level covert activities, etc (and a lot of it comes out of Afghanistan), but it's primarily about oil supply routes. It wouldn't matter who in Afghanistan was resisting the foreign presence, they would be characterized as "terrorists". They were characterized as "freedom fighters" when they were resisting the Soviet foreign presence there, and they are basically the same people...who then were receiving a great deal of help from the USA to fight the Russians, because RUSSIA was the offical enemy then.

Times have changed. ;-)

And most people's memories are short.

Your government and mine depend on that, don't they?

I'll tell you this, they are not there for one good or honest reason, and that's too bad because I feel sorry for the soldiers who are being used as pawns in a big oil game.

Subject: RE: BS: Canuckistan vs Talibanistan????
From: Peace
Date: 23 Oct 06 - 12:50 AM

"The United Nations released the following press statements regarding the action taken by the United States and Britain in Afghanistan.

After debate the members of the United Nations through the General Assembly and the Security Council agreed that the United States and the other nations involved were entitled to take action under the United Nations Charter, Chapter 7, Article 51. The action taken was directed against the Taliban, an invading army of students and the de facto government of a part of Afghanistan, and the international terrorist organisation Al-Qaeda that had declared war on the USA and had been nurtured by the Taliban in a symbiotic relationship since 1996. Before this action the Taliban had been in breach of a number of United Nations Security Council resolutions and United Nations sanctions were in place against them. The government of Afghanistan, recognised by the United Nations and all but three nations, had long sought United Nations assistance to repel the Taliban invaders and the action taken was to provide military assistance to this government while the United Nations Security Council took action to form a new fully representative, multi?ethnic and broad?based Afghan Government.

United Nations Press Releases.

GA/SM/274 AFG/151 8 October 2001"

Subject: RE: BS: Canuckistan vs Talibanistan????
From: Peace
Date: 23 Oct 06 - 12:01 AM

Badger, I don't wish to be impolite. So I won't be. But kiss, my and Royal Canadian go together real good right now.

Subject: RE: BS: Canuckistan vs Talibanistan????
From: dianavan
Date: 22 Oct 06 - 10:53 PM

Ebbie - Resist and resent all you want. That doesn't make it any less true.

Canada wouldn't be in Afghanistan if it weren't for the invasion by the U.S. If Canada weren't so quick to support the U.S., maybe they would have to finish what they begin.

When did Canada ever invade another country unless the U.S. led them into it?

Oh yeah, we attacked Washington in 1812.

That was back when we didn't follow the U.S. and do their bidding.

Subject: RE: BS: Canuckistan vs Talibanistan????
From: dianavan
Date: 22 Oct 06 - 10:34 PM

From CTV.ca:

"Casualties in perspective

Britain has also had 40 soldiers die in Afghanistan. However, by the end of October, they will have 4,700 troops serving in the country. Canada only has about 2,300.

The United States has lost 341 soldiers in combat in Afghanistan.

In a report published last month, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives found that Canada has accounted for 43 per cent of NATO coalition casualties in Afghanistan since February. Their data period ended on Sept. 8. Since then, eight more Canadian soldiers have died.

The report also found that a Canadian soldier serving in Afghanistan was six times more likely to die than a U.S. soldier serving in Iraq."

Subject: RE: BS: Canuckistan vs Talibanistan????
From: NH Dave
Date: 22 Oct 06 - 09:08 PM

Afghanistan is where the battle against terrorism is being fought, for it is the Talian who are the terrorists. Iraq is merely Bush's Tarbaby

Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Canuckistan vs Talibanistan????
From: gnu
Date: 22 Oct 06 - 08:53 PM

Ah... sorry. Of course, Badger, I could be wrong about the present state of affairs. Perhaps you could elaborate and educate me on your comments. I would welcome your input in this regard. If the present situation is as you say, my apologies for my outburst.

Subject: RE: BS: Canuckistan vs Talibanistan????
From: bobad
Date: 22 Oct 06 - 08:50 PM

"As of October 16, 2006, there have been 435 coalition deaths in Afghanistan as part of Operation Enduring Freedom and the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF): 282 American, 42 Canadian, 40 British, 19 Spanish, 18 German, 9 French, 9 Italians, 4 Dutch, 4 Romanians, 3 Danish, 2 Swedish, 1 Australian, 1 Norwegian, and 1 Portuguese."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan

Subject: RE: BS: Canuckistan vs Talibanistan????
From: gnu
Date: 22 Oct 06 - 08:36 PM

Ahem... my initial question still stands. Peace actually addressed the question, with an anolgy, and, in a way, almost agreed with, no, rather, "understood with", what I was proposing... so to speak...

There are no hard and fast answers, but surely this should be defined better than it has been to date... many people are dying on both sides and there doesn't seem to be any discussion in the newpapers or on the TV or anywhere.

Badger.... fuck you you asshole... we Canucks fought and died at Vimy (and others) and turned the the First World War for you when you were down. We Canucks fought and died at Dieppe so that the final invasion was successful. We Canucks fought and died in the boot and sat on the road to Rome for four fucking days for the allied forces to catch up so you and the rest could march into Rome and play it up on film... read a REAL fuckin history book asshole.

Subject: RE: BS: Canuckistan vs Talibanistan????
From: The Badger
Date: 22 Oct 06 - 07:44 PM

The British troops are doing the fighting and dying - you lot sit and guard things and get drunk!

Subject: RE: BS: Canuckistan vs Talibanistan????
From: number 6
Date: 22 Oct 06 - 05:56 PM

Sadly, it's becoming daily (small caption) news on the Canadian casualties .... sadly, they are now talking about increasing the tour of duty for Canadian troops.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Canuckistan vs Talibanistan????
From: Peace
Date: 22 Oct 06 - 05:28 PM

There are still many American troops in Afghanistn, Gnu. And they are dying there along with our kids.

Subject: RE: BS: Canuckistan vs Talibanistan????
From: Peace
Date: 22 Oct 06 - 05:23 PM

Gnu: Canada is beginning to beef up it's NCO corp. The problem in militaries all over the world is that of having its troops led by people who have "been there and done that". That sort of experience isn't gained playing paintball, as you well know. The problem Canada faces is that we do not get involved in all that many hot wars, and so we have inexperienced battlefield NCOs leading green troops. Yes, training does take care of bits of that, but not really the bits that matter.

And analogy I can give is this: Firefighters attend school for three months to gain their certifications in the various parts of firefighting they'll have to handle in the course of their careers. But, that is just the training. When the shit hits the fan, the guys ya want with you have been in the shit before. Not in a classroom.

Is that a good enough reason to be in Afghanistan? Probably not. Maybe it's time Canada redefined the role it's willing and able to play in world affairs that involve our military.

Subject: RE: BS: Canuckistan vs Talibanistan????
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Oct 06 - 05:17 PM

"It seems that Canadian troops are used to clean up after the U.S. forces. The U.S. goes in and creates havoc then begs Canada for help while the U.S. moves on to Iraq to create more havoc. When the U.S. can't win, they just invade another country and expect Canada to cover their butts and re-build the country." dianavan

Horse pucky. Even if it WERE true, I resent and resist the implication.

Subject: RE: BS: Canuckistan vs Talibanistan????
From: dianavan
Date: 22 Oct 06 - 04:55 PM

I thought that, initially, the Canadian troops were sent there to help re-build but that changed mighty fast.

I'm not surprised.

It seems that Canadian troops are used to clean up after the U.S. forces. The U.S. goes in and creates havoc then begs Canada for help while the U.S. moves on to Iraq to create more havoc. When the U.S. can't win, they just invade another country and expect Canada to cover their butts and re-build the country.

With Harper in power, I wouldn't be surprised to see Canadian troops employed to stop civil unrest in Iraq. That will free the U.S. to invade Iran or Korea.

Subject: RE: BS: Canuckistan vs Talibanistan????
From: Peace
Date: 22 Oct 06 - 04:47 PM

Timeline of Canadian involvement in Afghanistan.

I am not in favour of our troops being there under ill-defined ROE.

Subject: BS: Canuckistan vs Talibanistan????
From: gnu
Date: 22 Oct 06 - 04:33 PM

Any other Canucks out there wonder why our lads are after the Taliban? I thought we went over there to fight terrorism. Now, apparently, we are fighting the Taliban. Ah... ain't them there guys a religious group? Even if it's not a religious war, ain't that there a civil war?

Now, if we are there to battle train troops and field test weapons, that's one thing, even though it's wrong in the purest sense. But, the smoke and mirrors shit smells pretty bad to me... any other Canucks wonder why?

Yes... I supported the initial incursions... for the wrong reasons... I stand corrected, I think... do I?