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.

That's not true. Our tradition has been to wage war against the enemy. We didn't "peacekeep" Hitler out of Europe - we kicked his ass out.

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.

Also, let's not forget Canada's role in WWI, WWII, and Korea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milita...nada_during_WWI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milita...ng_World_War_II

http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/general/su...condwar/Canada2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britis...th_Forces_Korea


Canada has a proud military history, something that's not been taught in schools post-Trudeau.

Some people argue that "peacekeeping" was just a fantasy created by the Liberal Party in order to justify cuts to military spending (in order to pay for health care).

___________________
Nathan Fake - Outhouse (Valentino Kanzyani Remix) || ID PLZ! PVD ID!!!
Disco and classical had sex while watching a sci-fi movie. Their child: trance.

Last edited by ShadoWolf on Sep-18-2006 at 20:22

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

Note that there is no mention of Afghan civillian casualties at all.

___________________
Latest mix: Yohan - Full Spectrum (Fall 14 promo)
Like my stuff? Join my FB group here!

quote:

Originally posted by chinamon not true. i say "ugh" but i am a tranny.

quote:

Originally posted by kotsy lol colour me retarded

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

___________________
Take me home, in time you'll love me like one of your own..take me home.. with you.. no one on earth knows me like you do....

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

___________________
Latest mix: Yohan - Full Spectrum (Fall 14 promo)
Like my stuff? Join my FB group here!

quote:

Originally posted by chinamon not true. i say "ugh" but i am a tranny.

quote:

Originally posted by kotsy lol colour me retarded

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.

Nice

___________________
Latest mix: Yohan - Full Spectrum (Fall 14 promo)
Like my stuff? Join my FB group here!

quote:

Originally posted by chinamon not true. i say "ugh" but i am a tranny.

quote:

Originally posted by kotsy lol colour me retarded

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.

___________________
Latest mix: Yohan - Full Spectrum (Fall 14 promo)
Like my stuff? Join my FB group here!

quote:

Originally posted by chinamon not true. i say "ugh" but i am a tranny.

quote:

Originally posted by kotsy lol colour me retarded

^^^ 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.

Yeah Harper lost a few points from me by that remark. But, other politicians have said worse. I hate politics.

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.

Well, considering majority of the soldiers who are/have been in Afghanistan seems to believe in the mission doesn't seem to taken into account by the public opinion. Too many demagogues and idealogues just saying stuff.

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.

And I agree that merits of the mission should continued to be debated. But it just seems to me a lot of ppl don't care to be better informed about what's going on and just form an opinion.

quote:

I really don't think anyone isn't "standing behind our military" here.

Well, there are enough ppl who have knee jerk reaction to any war=bad, Conservatives=bad, anything related to US=bad.

Never quite understood the concept of 'supporting the troops by bringing them home'. I mean, the majority of soldiers signed up for the military knowing what they'd be getting into possibly, and a lot of them actually want to stay in Afghanistan.

___________________
Latest mix: Yohan - Full Spectrum (Fall 14 promo)
Like my stuff? Join my FB group here!

quote:

Originally posted by chinamon not true. i say "ugh" but i am a tranny.

quote:

Originally posted by kotsy lol colour me retarded

^^^ 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...