Another Layton press conference against the mission

[hugh19]

Old could you please use the spell check function.

 

[Flip]

United93,

In a very real sense we are in a world war now.
The last 5 years is just the beginning.

The USSRs beating in Afghanistan was a very different conflict than what is going
on today. The USSRs troops were not like NATOs troops today.
The USSRs enemy at the time are both allies (Northern Alliance) and
enemies (Taliban) today.

Islamic extremeism is a global phenomenon the threatens western interests
everywhere.  There is no hiding from it.  There is no avoiding it.

"Jack" is dangerously naive.  In the west, we want peace to just happen somehow.
We mistakenly believe that we can have peace by simply not making war.
To remain relevant, Canadians and the NDP in particular need to
grasp that freedom isn't free.



   

 

[Old and Tired]

Sorry for the spelling, posting from text messaging mon a cell phone.  :-[

 

[ex-Sup]

“Students of history will know that all major conflicts are resolved, ultimately, through peace-oriented discussions. . . . And that's what needs to happen here.”

??? Is this a special NDP-version of history that the rest of us don't know about? I'm not the ultimate authority, but I've taken enough history courses (9 to be exact) to know that Jack is somewhat in error. Maybe he should take my Gr.10 Canadian history class...wait, what the hell am I saying?

 

[DBA]

From an International Herald Tribune article: "About 15,000 of the American troops in Afghanistan are serving in the NATO-led force, which now totals about 36,000. The other 12,000 are special operations forces or are training Afghan troops." that's from Feb07. So 27,000 US troops and 21,000 NATO troops from countries other than the US in country. In addition the US has a large number of support elements in the region that are able to provide support to operations in Afghanistan.

 

[2 Cdo]

As the digits (WWII) suggest, it was a war...a world war, at a time where UN and NATO were not around; in Afghanistan right now, isn't it a peace mission ?

Not so long ago, a power much stronger than Canada, USSR, got their butts kicked in Afghanistan...then, how are we suppose to triumph over the Talibans without the intervention of the United States ? Even they are getting a serious beating in Irak. They are being handed another Vietnam on a silver plate. Since 9/11, they lost more men in Irak than the number of victims from the 9/11 attacks.

P.S. If Germany surrendered in '45, it's mainly because of the USA. Let's not forget what history taught us.

Reference your first question, the answer is NO.
Your second question, the US has over 20,000+ troops in Afghanistan.
Your PS statement. maybe you should re-learn your history as I don't think you retained any of it the first time. :

 

[Kat Stevens]

Layton using the flag draped coffins of 66 of Canada's finest as his soapbox sickens me to my very core.  I've maybe actually HATED 6 people in my life....seven now.  He's a stain on our flag.

 

[united93]

Islamic extremeism is a global phenomenon the threatens western interests
everywhere.  There is no hiding from it.  There is no avoiding it.

"Jack" is dangerously naive.  In the west, we want peace to just happen somehow.
We mistakenly believe that we can have peace by simply not making war.
To remain relevant, Canadians and the NDP in particular need to
grasp that freedom isn't free.

I agree with you. I just thing that CF, who has been mainly used in peace missions, might need help from other Forces, that's all I'm saying. I just think that people who believe that CF can handle it all by themselves are surely mistaken...may be we should use the concept of NATO troops when we debate what is going on in Afghanistan. We might collaborate, but it's certainly not exclusively because of the CF that things are better in Afghanistan. Let's not be blinded by our willpower and our ambition.

We can't be naive about it...since 2001, we have lost some 60 soldiers over there; that's a lot, probably too much considering the purpose of the mission.

I hope you're right...that our military presence is needed to fight off extremeism. So far, it doesn't seem to wanna slow down. These extremists, they are not afraid to die, and they are thousands willing to die, just to get back at the US or any other countries affiliated with them.

Canada signed over 250 protocols with the US, and the Talibans know about it. If our infrastructures get hit, it will be no doubt because of that association.

Think of what happened recently in Britain at one of their airports...imagine the same thing happening here...what would the public say...''our CF should protect our sovereignty first before giving a hand to the Afghans''. Who could blame 'em.

The fact remains: islamic extremeism is not limited to the whereabouts of Kandahar...it goes on mainly in our big occidental cities...NY, Madrid, London, ..., and no matter what goes on in Afghanistan, our cities will get hit, by Islamists that are probably not even related to the fights in Kandahar. It's an ideology that transcends geographical limits. How can you beat that.

 

[united93]

Reference your first question, the answer is NO.
Your second question, the US has over 20,000+ troops in Afghanistan.
Your PS statement. maybe you should re-learn your history as I don't think you retained any of it the first time. :

Good piece of advice. I'll quit my day job and go back to school, to re-learn my history.

 

[2 Cdo]

I agree with you. I just thing that CF, who has been mainly used in peace missions, might need help from other Forces, that's all I'm saying. I just think that people who believe that CF can handle it all by themselves are surely mistaken...may be we should use the concept of NATO troops when we debate what is going on in Afghanistan. We might collaborate, but it's certainly not exclusively because of the CF that things are better in Afghanistan. Let's not be blinded by our willpower and our ambition.

We can't be naive about it...since 2001, we have lost some 60 soldiers over there; that's a lot, probably too much considering the purpose of the mission.

I hope you're right...that our military presence is needed to fight off extremeism. So far, it doesn't seem to wanna slow down. These extremists, they are not afraid to die, and they are thousands willing to die, just to get back at the US or any other countries affiliated with them.

Canada signed over 250 protocols with the US, and the Talibans know about it. If our infrastructures get hit, it will be no doubt because of that association.

Think of what happened recently in Britain at one of their airports...imagine the same thing happening here...what would the public say...''our CF should protect our sovereignty first before giving a hand to the Afghans''. Who could blame 'em.

The fact remains: islamic extremeism is not limited to the whereabouts of Kandahar...it goes on mainly in our big occidental cities...NY, Madrid, London, ..., and no matter what goes on in Afghanistan, our cities will get hit, by Islamists that are probably not even related to the fights in Kandahar. It's an ideology that transcends geographical limits. How can you beat that.

United where do we begin? Your first paragraph reveals that you don't read what others post, or you don't care. I honestly don't know which it is.

Your second paragraph is naive. Not to belittle the deaths of our troops, but 60 deaths over 5 years is really not that bad. Again, not making light but pointing out the ridiculous assertation that 60 deaths is too many for a war.

Your third and fourth paragraphs reveal a poorly hidden anti-US agenda.

United, maybe it's time to do a little research on the WAR in Afghanistan. While you're at it, maybe research our responsibilities as a member of NATO. Maybe read what others who have been there have to say. Failure to do this will surely reveal you to be just another mindless troll who spouts rhetoric without knowing the facts, kind of like Taliban Jack.

 

[2 Cdo]

Good piece of advice. I'll quit my day job and go back to school, to re-learn my history.

And with that smarmy little answer, I'll now lump you in with the trolls. :

 

[united93]

So be it !

 

[DaveTee]

United 93: You should go back to school, as was pointed out, the Soviet Union crushed the German army. As for your question in regards to numbers vs the mission:
You said:

As the digits (WWII) suggest, it was a war...a world war, at a time where UN and NATO were not around; in Afghanistan right now, isn't it a peace mission ?

Numbers Say:

A total of 619,636 men and women served in the Canadian forces in the First World War, and of these 66,655 were killed and another 172,950 were wounded.

so that's 0.11 or 11% of all soldiers serving were killed in action.

1.1 million Canadians served in the armed forces in the Second World War. Of these, an officially recorded total of 42,042 members of the armed forces gave their lives, and another 55,000 were wounded.

and that is 0.003821818 or 0.38% were killed in action.

And in Afghanistan, of 2500 CF personnel, 66 have been killed, or 2.64% have been killed.

On a relative scale, the numbers say a little different then you, in that WW2 was a war and Afghanistan is not...Both were necessary and done with the best intentions, to stop some nasty people taking charge. The fact that you think Afghanistan isn't comparable to WW2 in any sense shows a rather large lack of respect for our soldiers. I think they deserve nothing but respect.

P.S What happened recently in Britain was that terror acts were STOPPED before they happened.

 

[FascistLibertarian]

2500 CF personnel, 66 have been killed, or 2.64% have been killed.

You would either have to count all the people who have been to A-Stan OR all the people who have served in the CF while the mission to A-Stan was on.
But I agree with the point of your post.

 

[DaveTee]

Yeah the numbers aren't perfect but they help the point, as you said.

 

[Reccesoldier]

It's not an opinion it is a historical fact.

 

[3rd Herd]

Actually it was more what the Soviets did. Perhaps you should learn some history and how to spell. ;D

Actually the Soviets only nailled Army Group Center and then ran out of steam. See Lucas, Erickson, Glantz, Le Tessier for examples while Overy and Wearth ascertain it was only the Soviet effort. Western Allies (including the the Polish) roll across Normandy. German Divisions are transferred from the Eastern front to the Western including some of their major Panzer formations and then promptly eithier surrounded or reduced to ineffective status. Try reading Keegan, Rohmer, Whitting, Copps, Whittiker, or our very own Brian S Reid to name a few. Remember Stalin demanding a "second front" ? Canadian formations bottle up various German Division in channel ports taking them out of the picture. I think Dunkirk was the last to surrender. And how can we forget all those German divison stranded due to lack of petrol in the Ardennes offensive. As the Soviets did not have a strategic air capability who I wonder disrupted factory war output, interupted the shipments of vital raw resources, delayed troop/panzer rail movements, attained air superiority. Lastly, if it were not for the massive amount of trucks and food shipped to the Soviets through Lend lease the Soviets would be still defending Moscow or maybe the Urals. In closing use search and explore our own military history forum.

edit: grammar

 

[Big Red]

These extremists, they are not afraid to die, and they are thousands willing to die, just to get back at the US or any other countries affiliated with them.

Canada signed over 250 protocols with the US, and the Talibans know about it. If our infrastructures get hit, it will be no doubt because of that association.

No...we will be attacked because they hate everything that we are. Most people in the west don't seem to understand that it doesn't matter WHAT you do, there is no appeasing the muslim fanatics.  They want to kill you because you are a westerner, regardless of your actions.

 

[FascistLibertarian]

Believe what you want, and I'll do likewise.

Here's a fact:

History is a social science; therefore, the findings of historians are hypothesis; if their findings are hypothesis, they just cannot be qualified as facts. How do you explain differences of interpretation between two historians writing about the same event ?

Opinion...not facts.

You are basically saying that everything is opinion not fact?
That doesnt mean certain history can not be better or truer than other history.
Everything is not equal.
If you say Germany won ww2 what can I do?
I cant prove it to you.
Everything is just an opinion right?
no facts....... :

 

[Haggis]

And in Afghanistan, of 2500 CF personnel, 66 have been killed, or 2.64% have been killed.

Your numers are deceiving.

2500 CF members are there right now and 19 have perished on this Roto.  This gives a fatality rate of 0.76%   Over the course of five years, over 16,500 CF members have served in Afghanistan (yes, I know, some went multiple times) 66 have been killed, giving a fatality rate of 0.4%.

Also when "comparing" wars, one must remember that 619,636 Canadians fought in WW1 from 1915 to 1918 (a four year average of 154,909), and 1.1 million Canadians fought in WW2, mostly between 1943 and 1945 (a three year average of 334,000).  16,500 Canadians have fought in Afghanistan since 2002 (a five year average of 3300). This is misleading because our presence there has not been constant or consistent.

Have I muddied the waters sufficiently yet?