TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- The Official Canada in Afghanistan thread
Pages (4): [1] 2 3 4 »
The Official Canada in Afghanistan thread
Seems something worth updating, since Canada has so much stake in this...
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...y/National/home
| quote: |
Canadian resolve weak: Taliban official MURRAY BREWSTER Canadian Press Kandahar, Afghanistan � As MPs gather in Ottawa to discuss Canada's more combative role in southern Afghanistan, a senior Taliban official and coalition commanders painted two disparate images Sunday of where the war is headed. In a weekend interview with The Canadian Press, insurgent spokesman Qari Yuosaf Ahmedi said the Taliban are convinced the resolve of the Canadian people is weak. As suicide attacks and roadside blasts increase, the public will quickly grow weary, he said. �We think that when we kill enough Canadians they will quit war and return home,� Mr. Ahmedi said in an interview, conducted through a translator, over a satellite telephone. Given the fact troops are already deployed, Mr. Ahmedi suggested Monday's House of Commons debate as a sign of indecision among Canadians. In addition to his fire-breathing rhetoric, the Taliban's public relations spokesman claimed that the insurgency had recruited 180 suicide bombers for operations in and around Kandahar over the next few weeks. He said they are prepared to attack Canadians �any one else, at any place and at any time.� But coalition commanders had a vastly different assessment, painting the Taliban as cornered, marginalized into rural pockets, struggling to raise money and find recruits. �The reason we think the Taliban are falling apart is because the pattern of attacks we're seeing is not co-ordinated,� said Major Quentin Innis, a Canadian liaison officer with the local community. �It may appear there are a lot of attacks going on and those are regretable.� On Sunday, Kandahar city was rocked by two separate remote-control improvised explosive device, or IED, attacks, which injured 11 Afghans, including two children. Senior Taliban commanders reside on the Pakistan side of the Afghan border and where many suiciders � as they known by local Afghans� are recruited, said the chief of staff to multinational brigade commander. British Col. Chris Vernon said, while the coalition has faced increased attacks, it has been successful is eliminating junior insurgent commanders. �Various middle level leaders in Afghanistan have been removed from the circuit over the last month,� he told reporters Sunday. �When they're asking for volunteers to come in and take those mid-level positions, there is a distinct lack of volunteers coming forward, particularly out of Pakistan.� He also said requests by front-line Taliban for more funds and equipment have not been answered. Canada's more front-line involvement in this dirt poor, war-ravaged country will be the subject of a �take-note� debate in the House of Commons on Monday. It will be largely a symbolic exercise as the matter will not be the subject of a vote. The new Conservative government has been reluctant to hold the debate because of its potential impact on the morale of the country's 2,200 troops deployed in southern Afghanistan. A few weeks ago, a public opinion survey found that a majority of respondents were opposed to Canada's more aggressive posture and wanted the country to return to its more traditional role of peacekeeping. And on Sunday, a new poll suggested the public is evenly divided on the Afghan mission. The survey by Decima Research found 45 per cent of respondents considered the deployment a good idea while 46 per cent viewed it as a bad idea. That's a statistical dead heat, given the poll's margin of error. The poll also indicated a lack of agreement on how long the military commitment should continue. Twenty-five per cent of respondents said the troops should stay as long as it takes to complete the mission. Another 10 per cent said they should stay another year or two, while 15 per cent were willing to see them stay up to five years. Fully 43 per cent, however, said the troops should come home within the next year. The online poll was conducted between March 31 and April 4 among 2,131 respondents. A random sample of this size is considered accurate plus or minus 2.2 percentage points, 19 times in 20. Since 2002, the conflict has cost the lives of 11 Canadian soldiers and one diplomat. A senior Afghan army officer said Sunday that Canadian politicians need to understand the positive contribution the army has made to the region, beyond military assistance. �The Canadians did a lot of things, especially for Kandahar,� Major Rahmatullah Sha, the deputy garrison commander of the city, said through a translator. �They've done a lot of reconstruction and security help. The security of Kandahar is normal. It's not that bad.� His account was somewhat contradicted by Major Innis, who laid out statistics from the local media that show there have been 24 roadside explosions or suicide car attacks between June 2005 and March 2006. Those assaults have killed 32 civilians. �We understand the citizens of Kandahar don't feel secure, but there are two things you have to realize,� said Major Innis. �The first thing is that there are more unsuccessful Taliban attacks than successful. I can't go into the details but we've prevented more attacks than those that have occurred.� The carnage can be blamed on foreign fighters, including jihadists from Pakistan, Chechnya and some Arab countries, said Major Sha. Coalition forces are believed to have killed a senior Taliban commander during an offensive in southern Helmand province Friday, said a statement by the U.S. military. Although the man was not identified, authorities claimed the commander �was directly tied to dozens of improvised explosive device attacks.� |
Saturday Apr. 15 at 7pm ET and Sunday Apr. 16 at 1pm ET
An exclusive glimpse into the reality facing Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan with unprecedented access into Operation Peacemaker, the largest combat mission for Canadian infantry since the Korean War. In a special W-FIVE documentary airing Saturday, April 15 at 7 pm on CTV (in all markets), correspondent Lisa LaFlamme joins Canadian Forces on a grueling 12-day mission to track the Taliban.
***
Sounds like worth a look, if you're interested in this kind of stuff.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by EvilTree Lisa LaFlamme |
Re: The Official Canada in Afghanistan thread
| quote: |
| Originally posted by EvilTree I don't think so my Taliban friend... You and your type aren't wanted by most of Afghans, simply because Canada and the rest of the allies are helping Afghan govt rebuild, while you Taliban types insist on blowing up stuff only. |
Re: Re: The Official Canada in Afghanistan thread
| quote: |
| Originally posted by sufee_b That's a real subjective statement. The only people who we see in the media on Afghanistan are the ones that do not like Taliban. Fact is, many, probably most Afghans DO want Taliban there...the Taliban have not only regained much seized land by the allies but also control it- with the help of the locals willing to fight with them..of course the media will not tell you that. |
I saw an amazing BBC documentary on the Passionate Eye the other day (God bless that show, btw) re: an Afghan women drivers' training service.
To see how open minded and democratic some FORMER TALIBAN fighters are gave me a lot of hope for the future of Afghanistan and made me think that the presence of CANADIAN security forces (not U.S.) can assist in spreading that liberal mentality. The U.S. presence, no matter what their leaders say, is too jaded IMHO.
For those of you that missed the W5 documentary, it's on again tomorrow at 1PM on CTV.
Only 30 mins long, but I thought it did a good job. More informative than exciting.
Re: Re: The Official Canada in Afghanistan thread
| quote: |
| Originally posted by sufee_b That's a real subjective statement. The only people who we see in the media on Afghanistan are the ones that do not like Taliban. Fact is, many, probably most Afghans DO want Taliban there...the Taliban have not only regained much seized land by the allies but also control it- with the help of the locals willing to fight with them..of course the media will not tell you that. |
You can download the ep at http://www.ctv.ca/wfive
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5355478.stm
Still more of a preliminary report. Expecting more details to be revealed later.
| quote: |
Canadians die in Afghan bombing Map A suicide bomber has killed at least four Canadians in an attack on a Nato patrol in the southern Afghan province of Kandahar, Canada's military says. Canadian commander Gen David Fraser said other troops were wounded. Police said a number of civilians were also hurt when the bomber rode a bicycle laden with explosives into a crowd of troops and children. The blast occurred in Panjwayi district, scene of recent fierce clashes between troops and the Taleban. On the front line Isaf - the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force - announced on Sunday it had successfully completed a mission to drive out the insurgents from the district, about 25km (15 miles) west of the city of Kandahar. Hundreds of people have been killed in the worsening violence in Afghanistan this year, many of them in suicide bombings across the south and east. A spokesman for the Taleban said the group carried out the latest attack. 'Wounded were running' Isaf said the latest bomb attack in the south occurred about 0930 local time (0500 GMT). Suicide attacks are common in parts of Afghanistan Local police said a patrol of Canadian soldiers were outside a school on foot, handing out pens and other items to children when a suicide bomber on a bicycle rode into the crowd. The explosives were in a crate on the back of his bike, an official said. One bystander described a horrific scene after the explosion. "Kids were running towards the Canadian convoy because they were giving out pens and notebooks to the children," Mohammed Karim told the AFP news agency. "A man riding on a bicycle approached the crowd and detonated in the crowd. "With the explosion, all the shouting of kids was ended and you could hear cries and people running to all sides. Some of the wounded were also running." Troops cordoned off the blast site, Isaf said, and soldiers were evacuated to military medical facilities for treatment. Taleban spokesman Qari Mohammad Yousuf said the bomber was a young Afghan from Kandahar and promised more attacks. Nato operation Nato said on Sunday that at least 400 Taleban fighters had been killed in a two-week operation codenamed Medusa, the biggest offensive since Nato took over southern Afghanistan from US-led forces at the end of July. The deaths cannot be independently verified. Isaf commander Lt-Gen David Richards said the Taleban had been forced out of the district and the next phase was to maintain security to allow thousands of people who had fled the fighting to return home, and then to start rebuilding and development projects. The BBC's Alastair Leithead in Kabul says the Nato mission emphasises this aspect, but has been bogged down by fighting over the past six weeks. The operation in Panjwayi is seen as a major test of the mission's strategy, which is attempting to win the support of local people for the government, our correspondent adds. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by EvilTree Wow. Willing to kill kids to get at ISAF soldiers. |
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/nati...t-soldiers.html
It's not worth it for Canada to be in Afghanistan. We're fighting in a war, when our traditional role has been peacekeeping. Let the USA fight their own wars.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Matt http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/nati...t-soldiers.html It's not worth it for Canada to be in Afghanistan. We're fighting in a war, when our traditional role has been peacekeeping. Let the USA fight their own wars. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Matt http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/nati...t-soldiers.html It's not worth it for Canada to be in Afghanistan. We're fighting in a war, when our traditional role has been peacekeeping. Let the USA fight their own wars. |
| quote: |
| http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv.../BNStory/Front/ Canada the peacekeeper? A myth that should die SUNIL RAM Globe and Mail Update The myth of Canada as the great peacekeeper is one of the more fanciful delusions under which Canadians live. It's time to let the myth die. Peacekeeping, for Canadians, is indelibly linked with Lester Pearson, who as secretary of state for external affairs won the 1957 Nobel Peace Prize for his concept of armed peacekeeping - specifically, the United Nations Emergency Force, which was deployed to end the Suez crisis. As Pearsonism permeated the psyche of average Canadians, a national myth was born: Canada as compassionate, middle-power peacekeeper. On the surface, the myth seems true. According to the Department of National Defence, Canada has been involved in more than 40 UN and non-UN sponsored peacekeeping missions (some sources put the number as high as 90) since 1948. More than 100,000 personnel have been committed to these missions, during which time the Canadian Forces has suffered more than 100 casualties. The cost to the taxpayer has been tens of billions of dollars. Added to these figures is a much-ballyhooed government statement that Canada has been involved in every peacekeeping mission. According to a 1999 DND survey, 92 per cent of Canadians "believe it is important for the CF to be able to protect human rights in fragile democracies." In fact, even in the glare of the Somalia and Rwanda conflicts, Canadians see Canada's military role as that of a benign peacekeeper rather than a fighter. Related to this article Latest Comments Comments * Comments are closed for this story The Globe and Mail But the perception withers when confronted with facts. Early in 2002, Paul Heinbecker, Canada's then-ambassador to the UN, asked members of the Canadian Institute of International Affairs where Canada ranked as a peacekeeper. Most of the audience assumed that Canada was among the top 10 nations. Mr. Heinbecker revealed that Canada was 31st. By March of 2004, Canada had slipped to 38th. The myth runs counter to the actual history of Canadian military operations since the end of the Cold War: the 1991 Persian Gulf war; the 1993 battle of the Medek pocket in Croatia; the 1999 invasion of Kosovo; and Afghanistan in 2003. Yet, the myth of Canada as peacekeeper has been reiterated by many of the respondents to the 2003 federal initiative known as the Canadian Foreign Policy Dialogue. Most citizens who took part in the project put a huge emphasis on Canadian peacekeeping. Sean Maloney of the Royal Military College says: "Canadians are ceaselessly inundated with the ideology that Canada doesn't fight wars, that Canadians are peacekeepers ....." Policy emphasis on peacekeeping, meanwhile, perpetuates the myth that Canada's military mainly does peacekeeping, that we are good at it and that we gain international respect for it. Are we good at peacekeeping? No, we're not. Canadian soldiers do a superb job with what limited support they get from Ottawa and DND. But this is rarely co-ordinated. It's the professionalism of the troops rather than a solid, integrated policy that has allowed Canadian governments to maintain the peacekeeping myth. Canada's rating of 38th in the world in 2004 is based on actual military and civilian police personnel commitments. Critics of this rating argue that it's not the quantity but the quality that counts, but such a perspective is ill-informed. Consider the actual numbers of personnel committed to missions: for most, Canada has commited few personnel. Between 1948 and 2003, there have only been seven UN or non-UN missions to which Canada sent more than 1,000 troops. Canada didn't contribute anyone to another seven missions. For 31 missions, we committed fewer than 100 military and civilian police (many of these missions had fewer than 10 people). Only 19 missions had between 100 and 900 personnel. After the mid-1990s, Ottawa policy dictated that Canada would only commit to specific missions rather than all UN peacekeeping missions. In 2002, the year the bulk of Canada's deployable military capability was in Bosnia-Herzegovina as part of NATO's Stabilization Force, Canada had only 314 UN peacekeepers. During the same year, Bangladesh committed 6,029, India 2,843, Ghana 2,575, and Nepal 1,111. That year, Canada represented less than 1 per cent of the nearly 48,000 troops committed by nations for UN peacekeeping. Nor can it be argued that Canada was busy in the Balkans. Of the nearly 40,000 troops committed directly or indirectly to the region by NATO, Canada's force was less than 1 per cent of the total. As of June of 2004 - thanks to our short-term commitment in Haiti - 726 Canadian personnel were on UN missions. In that same time, Brazil had committed 1,351 troops, Germany 3,306, India 2,928, South Africa 2,365 and Uruguay 1,908. One reason for this disparity is that many developing nations use UN deployments to generate hard currency. The UN pays countries that commit to its missions $1,000 (U.S.) per UN soldier per month, and these soldiers still take home their regular pay. Clearly, given Canada's limited commitments, we cannot claim to be the world's leading peacekeeper. In terms of UN operations, countries such as Ghana or India or the Scandinavian states are far superior in terms of their long-term commitments and the professionalism of their troops. Unlike Canada, countries such as Norway and Australia have integrated foreign, defence and aid policies when pursuing the peacekeeping paradigm. The fundamental problem for Canada is that the conceptualization of Pearsonian peacekeeping is an anachronism. True, the number of boots on the ground is a major factor in effective peacekeeping and peace enforcement. Experience has shown that the presence of a robust combat-capable force does deter violence and allows non-governmental organizations the protection they need to do their work. As retired major-general Lewis MacKenzie has noted, modern peacekeeping missions must have well-trained, equipped and armed soldiers who may be required to kill to protect themselves and others. In the post-Cold War era, peacekeeping is more about peace enforcement; at its extreme, it might be thought of as war by other means. Canadian policy simply has not adapted to this reality, and this has very much been driven by public opinion. The public clings to the notion that our peacekeeping role has brought us international respect. But there's no evidence that Canada's limited commitments to peacekeeping have any effect on how other states deal with us. Peacekeeping has always been an ad hoc process for the military and the government. The most recent folly related to the peacekeeping myth is the Liberal government's announcement that it would create a 5,000-person "UN peacekeeping brigade." The only way this can be achieved without more funding, or raising the manning levels of the Canadian Forces, would be to strip the navy and the air force of personnel. Even then, it is doubtful that more than 1,000 to 2,000 troops of dubious peacekeeping quality could be committed. What the government of Paul Martin has proposed is akin to what the Germans were forced to do toward the end of the Second World War as they ran out of combat troops: They put ill-equipped air force and navy personnel into front-line roles. For its part, the UN will not care. At the end of the day, Bangladesh or Ghana can still put more boots on the ground than Canada. Sunil Ram is a professor of military history and land warfare at American Military University, where he also teaches peacekeeping. He is also the author of the UNITAR training program for peacekeeping in the Balkans and is currently revising the UNITAR program on the modern history of peacekeeping. A former Canadian soldier, he holds a UN Global Citizen Award for furthering awareness of peace and peacekeeping. |
Well, this is how the 'other side' views today's attack.
http://kavkazcenter.com/eng/content...9/18/5621.shtml
| quote: |
| 6 Canadian Invaders Terminated, Wounded in Afghanistan Last update: 18 September 2006, 17:34 Publication time: 18 September 2006, 14:16 Approximately 16 soldiers of NATO-led ISAF were killed and wounded today, September 18, in Afghanistan. The attack was carried out by a Taliban suicide bomber, Quratullah, of Kandahar province who was riding a bicycle. The attack against a Canadian patrol happened in Qluf area of Pashmool. Pashmool area is located 30 kilometer west of Kandahar city on the border between Panjwai and Ziari Dashta. NATO-led ISAF forces recently conducted a grand propaganda-type operation in Panjwai and Ziari called "Medusa" and claimed to have killed over 400 fighters in the operations. However, Taliban said that the number of their casualties in the operation "Medusa" was not more than 15. Taliban on Monday (Sept. 18) said that none of their fighter was killed in Gereshk district of Helmand yesterday (Sept. 17). After the claim of Helmand officials that 13 fighters were killed including a Talib commander Mulla Muhammad Akhund in Gereshk district, spokesman of the legal Afghan government of The Islamic State of Afghanistan, Dr. Muhammad Hanif told Afghan Islamic Press that it was false as no clash took place in Gereshk yesterday. He, however, said that an enemy's plane pounded an area in the same district but there were no casualties. KC |
A really close friend of mine is over in Afganistan right now...
hearing of attacks on the news has become much more terrifying these days knowing he is over there...
i say prayers for all the soldiers who are fighting from our country... but especially for my friend..
i don't really like the idea of Canadas involvment with this.. but i support my friend's and all of the other soldiers courage to be there...
Nikki
interesting situation.
look at Iraq just after the "war" (invasion), particularly after Saddam's capture...I would guess that there was silent hope and excitement to think that he and his party could be permanently oustered.
but ask them now if they prefered Saddam's Iraq...or what they have now...an uncertain future with even more day-to-day violence and chaos than existed under Saddam.
I bet many Afghans feel the same way...maybe they would like the Taliban permanently turfed...but if it means years of uncertainty, violence, etc...then better the devil you know, perhaps (from a citizen's standpoint)?
it's unfortunate that either the coalition misleads the public back home as to what will be involved...or to they've underestimated the tasks undertaken in both scenarios.
so what happens when a "big" nation triggers a military response? Like Iran, North Korea, etc? How unprepared is the world to deal with THAT potential mess if they can't clean up Iraq and/or Afghanistan?
I don't envy the people making those decisions...
This letter was written by a Canadian soldier, wounded in action in Afghanistan and mid September 2006. He has sent a personal, signed copy to NDP Leader Jack Layton. For good and valid reasons he would rather preserve his anonymity here.
----------
| quote: |
| Dear Mr Layton, As I sit at home recovering from my wounds occurred in a fire fight with the Taliban, I wonder just how you think you can speak for Canadian Soldiers? You should know that you are now called "Taliban Jack" and that, Sir, is not a term of endearment nor of affection. I and the majority of the CF members to whom I, personally, have talked see no need for this mission in Afghanistan to be rethought, nor do we require you to "Support the Troops, Bring them Home." We are willing to put our lives in danger for your right to say the things you say, but remember, please: your political agenda does not mean you can imagine we want to be brought home before our job is done. I was wounded, badly wounded, and I did everything short of begging to stay in country. Why you may ask would I want to stay there? Because Sir, I believe in the mission. I have seen just how much our presence has changed that country for the better between my first tour in 2003-2004 and now in 2006. I would go back in a heart-beat, today, pain and all, if just to help one more girl go to school or see one more woman walk without a burka. I will be back, as soon as my wounds are healed, with my current Regiment or after I have completed my training for the Special Operations Regiment. I challenge you, Sir, to go to Afghanistan and talk to the soldiers and see first-hand just how much good we are doing before you can even think to say you "Speak for the Soldiers". I know that I am only a serving soldier and you are an important public official; I know that this is a matter of national importance; I think you should know my views. I do not, cannot speak for the Canadian Forces or anyone else and this letter is not about the CF or the policy or even the public debate about our mission. It is about you: what you said and what you appear to believe about people like me. Sincerely A wounded ( and gladly so for the better of Aghanistan ) Soldier |
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...y/National/home
| quote: |
Thousands rally for military overseas Canadian Press The Globe and Mail OTTAWA � The subdued colours of official Ottawa were replaced Friday with blazing displays of red as thousands of people jammed Parliament Hill in an unprecedented outpouring of pride and tears for Canadian troops fighting in Afghanistan. "First off all I'd like to say, wow," said Lisa Miller, wife of a Canadian soldier, as she surveyed the crowd of up to 10,000 from a platform at the base of the Hill. "We never dreamed it would be this good," she said weakly, wiping tears from her eyes. "It's heart-warming you came together to support our soldiers." Ms. Miller and another military spouse, Karen Boire, were the architects of a campaign to wear red on Fridays as a show of support for the soldiers. It started in Petawawa, Ont. � home of the Royal Canadian Regiment's 1st Battalion, which is currently deployed overseas. The idea of a rally took on a life of its own as local radio stations in Ottawa � spearheaded by CFRA � pumped it up, promoting it on air. Prime Minister Stephen Harper made an impromptu appearance, telling the rambunctious, upbeat audience that they owe their freedoms to soldiers just like the ones who are fighting terrorism in Afghanistan. Throughout the lunch hour Friday � by foot, by cab and by bus � supporters of the troops and the war in Afghanistan streamed on to the front lawn, all wearing or carrying something red. There were red shirts, red ties, floppy red hats, red jackets, even flashes of red thongs among the crowd. Both spouses said they believe they've tapped into an unseen reservoir of pent-up emotion that's been building as casualties in the conflict mount and the debate over the merits of the mission becomes more shrill. "We believe Canadians at large have always supported our troops, although they've not until now had a way to visually show their support," said Ms. Boire, whose boyfriend is in uniform, but not currently overseas. "We're humbled by the success of this rally and the 'wear red Fridays' campaign. We now have an understanding of just how many people actually get it." Mr. Harper said no one � not even journalists � should be "afraid or ashamed to defend the Canadian military." It was an apparent reference to recent disciplinary action taken against a Radio-Canada journalist, who publicly spoke in favour of troops in Afghanistan. The war has grown increasingly unpopular among Canadians, something military leaders � both at home and overseas � have watched with a degree of dismay. "Your actions here today are a tangible sign to (soldiers) that their service is not unseen, their actions are not unappreciated and indeed their sacrifice is appreciated greatly," said Gen. Rick Hillier, chief of defence staff, who stood for most of the rally beside Pte. Michael Spence, a soldier wounded in a recent friendly-fire incident. Although billed as a non-partisan rally, Mr. Harper used the occasion to slip in a not-so-subtle jab at NDP Leader Jack Layton, who has called for the withdrawal Canadian troops from the combat portion of the mission. "Friends, I believe you cannot say you are for our military and then not stand behind them in the great things they do." The rally came hours after Afghan President Hamid Karzai addressed a joint session of Parliament and thanked Canadians for their efforts in the poverty-stricken country. Later, Mr. Karzai laid a wreath at the National War Memorial to honour the 36 Canadians who've died serving in his country since 2002. There are 2,300 Canadian soldiers serving in Afghanistan, with another 200 on the way. |
I'm sure this show of support is very much appreciated by our troops.
"Friends, I believe you cannot say you are for our military and then not stand behind them in the great things they do."
I'm curious to know exactly what he means by that. Was it indeed a jab at Layton and anyone else who is questioning the mission or calling for troop withdrawl? Is he suggesting a relation between questioning (or even opposing) a military mission and supporting our troops? Supporting our troops is an entirely different matter than supporting a political decision to engage in a mission of undetermined length and scope. Those are valid concerns and unrelated to whether or not we support the Canadian military.
Let's be honest...this type of rally and appearance is as much about showing support for the troop as it is to shore up waning public support for this mission. That's fine...it's his job to try to win over Canadians, right? I hope it's an honest comment, saying that if you support the military, you need to show support for our soldiers efforts. That's fine. So long as he's not implying that supporting our troops = supporting this mission. Those are two different issues.
I almost unconditionally support and respect people who choose to serve in our military...that is 100% unrelated to *political* decisions on how to deploy that military.
^I think that was bit of a cheap shot at Taliban Jack (oops. my bias slipping again) and Duceppe and other politicians against him on this issue.
A bit uncool of Harper.
^^^ that's what I'm asking.
*if* that is the case...than I'd call Harper a bit of an opportunist who should be ashamed of himself.
Don't question support of the military itself because some people are calling into question the way that military is being used by your gov't.
That's not to imply that I agree with Layton either, btw. I just don't appreciate this becoming a political game from either side.
This topic at hand is the continual evaluation of the merits of this mission...not about trying to garner public support for one's particular political agenda.
I really don't think anyone isn't "standing behind our military" here.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MarkT ^^^ that's what I'm asking. *if* that is the case...than I'd call Harper a bit of an opportunist who should be ashamed of himself. |
| quote: |
Don't question support of the military itself because some people are calling into question the way that military is being used by your gov't. |
| quote: |
This topic at hand is the continual evaluation of the merits of this mission...not about trying to garner public support for one's particular political agenda. |
| quote: |
| I really don't think anyone isn't "standing behind our military" here. |
^^^ agreed...there are a lot of 'armchair generals' who sit at home and feel they know what's best, lol. I leave those decisions to those who know better. I just don't think there are that many Canadians who, regardless of their thoughts on Afghanistan or war in general, would look negatively upon our troops.
I can't say that soldiers' opinions should be taken as gospel though. I bet that a lot of American soldiers felt that they were justified in being in Iraq...that they were doing the right thing there...etc. I don't think that necessarily makes it so. In fact, the gov'ts of most countries would disagree with them.
I would guess that the troops mainly see it on a small 'grassroots' level, likely without comprehensively understanding the overall political repercussions of being (or not being) there...which is fine, since that's not their responsibility. The average soldier likely doesn't have even have an in depth grasp of regional and international politics of the Middle East. They are experiencing it on a micro level (which is relevant, of course) and have rather small, very specific tasks on an individual level.
It's like if I worked with the homeless in my neighbourhood...I can see that my work makes a *clear* difference to the people I encounter...but does that mean that I fully understand the broader context of the problem of homelesness in the entire city or country? No. So my thoughts and experiences are relevant, and should be considered in any discussion on the topic, they just need to be considered for what they're worth in the broader context, I think.
On the whole, I can't imagine (thankfully) what it's like to live in an environment of war and violence on a daily basis...or to live under a repressive, controlling gov't. I imagine that being over there is quite an eye opener for our troops...
http://www.***********/archives/2006...tack_humvee.wmv
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.