Canadian involvment in Afghanistan

Since 2001, Canada has been doing various roles in Afghanistan. Recently, we have taken overn command of the Kandahar region and are doing a far more dangerous and combat-oriented mission. Unfortunately, we have lost some good troops and will probably lose more in the future.
all the while, many people still think that we are "peace-keeping", or aren't sure if we're even in Afghanistan! other complain that using the Armed Forcesfor nasty things like war which require them to proactively use their weapons is wrong.
Personally, I am appalled at the level of support that some elements of the Canadian people are giving our brave soldiers in Afghanistan. The army is a group which uses violence to further the intertests of the Canadian government. That's how the world is. Canada has an international duty to do, and it is being done by so few. They deserve our support, as well as active support by the government in terms of funding and acquistions, which the Conservatives are lined up to do, assuming the Bloc (which is determined to slow any aid to Canadian soldiers down, hence actively endangering their lives0 and the Liberals (who will probably be more-or-less inclined to give our troops the tools they need) and the NDP (whos defence platform consisted of having the Canadian Forces for peacekeeping only) don't block the legislation needed to do so.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Quote:

Canada does not have an interest in becoming a leadership force in Afghanistan.

Really? Because I thought that Afghanistan, espeically the southern provinces, is a haven for terrorist fundraising. To put it simply, if we're going to be in on the War on Terror, we have a part to play. To put it quite honestly, it has far more than "petty sentiment" at hand. The Canadian Forces are actively protecting Canada and its allies by hindering terroist efforts in Afghanistan, hence contributiing to national secturity, global stability and prospoerity...fior both Canadians and Afghans.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Quote:

Wait, wait, wait - could you please elaborate that "international duty" part. I'm real curious what our duty ought to be, besides peace-keeping.

Because terrorism cannot be dealt with using Peace-keeping, a term that is so over-used and abused that it has resulted in people dying. "Peace-keeping" refers to montotring an international agreement between two willing combattants who are both willing to contribute to the peace process. Al-Queada and the Taliban are hardly "willing participants". Combat is what the army is for, it base function.

Quote:

Please explain how Canada benefits from risking it's soldier's lives in an area which *will* be dealt with by other nations if we aren't there? I mean, besides the glory of it.

Canada often claims to be "world leader", although words are cheap, actions are not. Simply letting tohers do it because htye have to is hardly being an international citizen, nor it is being ethical.

Quote:

CNN, America's most trusted network.", right Loyalist?

Real clever, really, you know, no-one's ever thought of accusing some-one else of being brain-washed by the media from a supposedly "objective" standpoint because they take themsleves too seriously and can't come up with a decent argument. Seriously, that's original, I hope a huge number of posters don't steal your clever idea, go back in time, and spread it mindlessly around the internet, being rather smug and foolish, hence making you look like an unoriginal and ineffective debator. Because, you know, that would be awful.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Quote:

This actually made me laugh. The nature of terrorism is that you cannot fight it with a war. That's why it was invented.

You can't fight it with appeasement, either. Canada is taking a 3D approach: defence, diplomacy and development to combat terrorism. The fact is that unless we or one of our allies have troops stationed there, the Taliban will re-emerge, continue growing poppies and Al-Queada will renew training camps and planning operations.

Quote:

The only way to actually fight terrorism is to prove the terrorists wrong by NOT invading their homes.

So, really, the only way to help the Afghan people is to allow fundamentalists to stomp all over their freedoms, force them to choose an archaic way of life, and allow them all kinds of room to plan attacks against you? Sorry, buddy, but life's not that sweet. Keep in mind that the the US had enevr stepped foot into Afghanistan, even helped them fight of the Russians, yet is still continually targeted as some kind of global scapegoat.

Quote:

You think people might have picked up on this after Vietnam, a country of about 50,000,000 then, sent the U.S. packing, but no. You cannot kill an idea.

Totally different situation. Veitnam was a general uprising against a military regime that was supported by a foriegn power (the USSR) and fought with using a large, conventional, at one point conscript army. Afghanistan is a country in which tribal indentities are far more important than national ones, the number of people actually engagaing the Allied troops in relatively small, and we're using well-trained and well-equipeed professional armies.

By the way, you can kill an idea. Defence is only one component in the process, but it is still a component. Just look at Russia ( a young capitalist society) and China (less and less Communist by the day).

I'm not saying the army is the only thing we need to rebuild Afghanistan and defeat terrorism. But it's an essential part of the plan nonetheless, and it is working in conjunction with agencies such as CIDA in order to take Afghanistan off the terroist map.

How ya doing, buddy?

Either way, they're getting our help. And either way, Canada is using its military responsably in it's mission to further Canadian interests through the managed use of force.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Um, like 2200? Jackass.

How ya doing, buddy?

Whatever it takes, within the boundries of what the Canadian Forces can provide. I'm not neccesarily pushing for more troops, I'm saying we should have a continued presence in Afghanistan. I find the juvinle "like,what,5?" remark offensive, as it is offensive to Canada's mission and canada's troops.

FELIPE NO

As usual? We one of the FIRST to commit ro Afghanistan in 2002, and we've already had two different missions there. I was stating the function of our armed forces. And did or the Parlaiment of Canada ever accuse Ameircans of being imperalists? No. You can use Chocojournal for your juvinile ramblings, thank you.

We're not "holding the fort down", as there is no fort there. We are building a fort.

You may not be impressed with Canada, but your generals were impressed with actions of our troops during the Afghan campaign, our JTF2 commandos and Coyote armoured units in particular. So, I'd suggest, for next time, actually learn something about the stiuation.

Now that we've taken Kandahar, I'm sure the world will continue to be impressed with the way Canadians fight, stabilize and reconstruct.

Most amazing jew boots

I try to like Americans, I really do.

Anyhow, my mistake. We had begun to commit resources in late 2001:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/af.../timeline.html

Most amazing jew boots

1) The Canadian contingent was sceduled to expand before Harper was in power (no shit, buddy, you can't train all kind of troops for mission-specific capbilities that fast)

2)We realy have no economic interest in Afghanistan

3) The Taliban is still well and alive in Afghanistan

4) There is widespread support for the Afghan mission throughout the Canadian Forces

5) Extremists are killing Canadians, not Harper.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Disturbing little piece on how some of thew fallen troops are being treated: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...ADA24/TPStory/

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.